OBV 1 - The BOP is shared in this debate. I must demonstrate that abortion shouldn't be banned in the US, whereas my opponent must prove that abortion should be banned. The resolution is normative and as such the burdens are shared.
OBV 2 - Since the BOP is shared this ultimately means that we must both provide a case which should attempt to prove our positions in the debate (as stated in observation 1). If we manage to prove our position to be true this means that we win the debate. Since both our positions conflict (I believe in allowing abortions; my opponent believes in banning it), this means that only one of us can prove our positions to be correct in this debate. Whoever does this wins.
My framework will be centered around libertarianism. Within libertarianism, there is controversy on abortions because it depends on if the fetus is alive. If the fetus is alive then libertarians are against abortions because libertarians are individualists and therefore value the life of the individual heavily . If the fetus is not alive then libertarians advocate abortion because libertarians belief in a less powerful and restrictive government. In our first contention we will prove the fetus to be living. I will explain why we should have an abortion under libertarian belief.
Capitalism magazine explains this by saying,
“A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body... There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e., there is no right to enslave... a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church).” 
She is the individual that libertarians prioritize, due to their individualist beliefs . Since libertarians believe in a less restrictive government, the outcome is clear. The government should NOT be involved in something so personal to the person since by intervening in this person’s choice, you are restricting them and are violating libertarian ideology .
You ought to buy the libertarian framework because this debate is based on a law change and a law change should be in the people’s best interest as well as the government's. With the less restrictive government the people’s choices must be respected and considered. If my opponent concedes that this debate should be about doing what is in the people’s best interest then the libertarian framework ought to be conceded and judges should use this as a judging framework standard.
The Fetus Is Not Alive
Only 1.4% of abortions occur after 21 weeks into the pregnancy [3,4]. This means that that most abortions are done before the fetus is even formed. It is an embryo, and an embryo is proven to be not alive. It isn't a subject of discussion when talking about the embryo as to whether or not it’s living so even if my opponent manages to prove that the fetus is living (which I will attempt to negate below), this still means that the majority of abortion cases do not involve any controversial life .
I will now address the fetus - which is mitigated due to the small percentage of abortions that occur at this period.
There are 7 categories in which life can be identified. The categories have been compiled by biologists over a long period of time with great discussion. The fetus only meets 2 of these when, in order to classify it as living, it must meet all of them .
Movement - The fetus can move so this part is met.
Respiration - The fetus cannot respire on its own .
Sensitivity - The fetus cannot sense at 24 weeks or even 28 weeks .
Growth - The fetus does grow.
Reproduction - Whilst it is a fetus, no it cannot reproduce .
Excretion - This is possible however very rare and unlikely .
Nutrition - The fetus cannot independently take in nutrition.
If one of these wasn’t met then the fetus would not be considered alive. The fetus was only able to meet 2. Ergo, the fetus is not living. If the fetus is not living then a termination is not detrimental to society and it does not act as a law violation (ie. murder).
Even if the fetus is alive, you still ought to presume Con.
“the "right to life" doesn’t imply a right to use somebody else’s body. People have the right to refuse to donate their organs, for example, even if doing so would save somebody else’s life.” 
You ought to vote Pro based on this premise alone.
There is a large difference between ‘human’ and ‘will be human’. Those that are against abortion often confuse the terms ‘human’ and ‘human being’. As Joyce Arthur put it,
“a flake of dandruff from my head is human, but it is not a human being, and in this sense, neither is a zygote” 
She continues with her example,
“Anti-choicers will respond that a fertilized egg is not like dandruff, because the fertilized egg consists of a unique set of chromosomes that makes it a separate human being. But with cloning, a cell from my dandruff is enough to create a new human being. Although it would have my identical genetic make-up, it would still be a unique individual, because human beings are much more than our genes” 
As many pro choice people have put it, the fetus (and the cloned cell) represent potential to be human. Not humans. The famous saying illustrates this nicely:“an acorn isn’t an oak tree and the egg you had for breakfast isn’t a chicken.”
The fetus is comparable to the virus. The virus (which is considered nonliving) is dependent on a host cell. Just like the fetus is dependent on the mother. Humans, by definition, must be separate individuals from other human beings. As Arthur put it:“They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being—the very thought is inherently ridiculous, even offensive.” 
I do not assume that humans must be conscious or sentient. I do, however, believe that they must individuals which is clearly violated as I have explained.
When an abortion is legal there is absolutely no point in having an illegal abortion because they have been proven to be very dangerous and expensive. If abortion are legal then illegal abortions will negatively correlate . These illegal abortions have been known to kill both the mother and the baby and sometimes result in extreme suffering on the mother’s part . Mothers are not doctors (most of the time) so these illegal abortions also occur later than 24 (and even 28) weeks meaning that the babies suffer too !
“13% of pregnancy-related deaths worldwide are related to complications of unsafe abortion.”
This statistic is shocking but demonstrates my point very well. These unsafe abortions are illegal and this is what is currently happening because abortions are illegal in places. They have no option to a safe abortion and are so desperate for abortion that they attempt to have an unsafe abortion. Therefore, we can conclude that there are a huge number of unsafe abortions (13% of all pregnancy related deaths). From this we can then follow up an argument suggesting that making abortions illegal will not necessarily get rid of all abortions therefore rendering our opponent’s aim to be mitigated.
“19% of teens who have had sexual intercourse become pregnant each year. 78% of these pregnancies are unplanned. 6 in 10 teen pregnancies occur among 18-19 year olds.” 
This statistic is significant for many reasons. If this occurs amongst 18 - 19 year olds then this is extremely bad. Having to look after and care for a child ruins their chances of going to university. Your twenties are your most important period of your lives according to many sources [13,14,15]. Whilst this is still arguably subjective there are also many reasons as to why you should view your twenties as the most important reason in your life objectively. Having to look after a child in this period of time is extremely stressful and prevents you from getting proper qualifications and more importantly, it prevents you from getting a full time job and a house . Children are extremely expensive to have and having a child at the time when you should be looking for a job makes income problematic. On top of this you will have to pay huge amounts of money.
“To raise a child born in 2013 to the age of 18, it will cost a middle-income couple just over $245,000, according to newly released estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That's up $4,260, or almost 2%, from the year before.”
Now let's compare this to the average income of a family:
“The typical U.S. households pulls in $51,371 per year.” 
Teenage parents are most likely to make a lot less than this but let's take this statistic anyway. Assuming that this ‘average’ family spend no money at all on anything. It will still cost them almost 5 times their yearly income to equate to that amount. Of course they will need food, clothes, mortgage, heating, electricity etc. on top of this sum of money.
If this seems like a lot you should double the cost of a child figures (assuming that they have another child), what will you do then? Not allow an abortion? Allow these teenagers to pay almost $500,000, earning (most likely) less than $51,371 per year.
Pregnancies have a huge impact upon people’s lives - in particular the mother. As Sarah Weddington stated:
“A pregnancy to a woman is perhaps one of the most determinative aspects of her life. It disrupts her body. It disrupts her education. It disrupts her employment. And it often disrupts her entire family life.” 
“[And we feel that], because of the impact on the woman, this … is a matter which is of such fundamental and basic concern to the woman involved that she should be allowed to make the choice as to whether to continue or to terminate her pregnancy.” 
This was a case showing that without the right to a termination, you are denying women a right and therefore what my opponent is advocating is gender inequality.
The philosopher, Judith Thomson said:
“If abortion rights are denied, then a constraint is imposed on women's freedom to act in a way that is of great importance to them, both for its own sake and for the sake of their achievement of equality .... and if the constraint is imposed on the ground that the foetus has a right to life from the moment of conception, then it is imposed on a ground that neither reason nor the rest of morality requires women to accept, or even to give any weight at all.” 
This emphasizes my previous point in regards to the denial of gender rights and equality.
P1: Denying women an abortion is gender inequality
P2: Gender inequality is a violation of human rights
C1: Abortion legalization stops gender inequality rights
C2: Abortions should be legalized
14000 women yearly get abortions because they are raped yearly . This may seem like a small amount (and in reality it is just 1%) however these are 14000 individuals that, under the libertarian framework, should be valued and considered in society. In libertarianism, the life is valued under opposite standards to utilitarianism . 1 life is just as valuable as 100. Libertarians are individualists - not collectivists . Under the libertarian framework life matters, no matter how small the number the freedom of the individual should be prioritized. Government restriction should be minimal and by preventing abortions you create a restriction. Due to the libertarian framework you ought to vote con.
This debate (as can be easily concluded by reading the resolution) is centered on the US so in order to determine whether or not the fetus has rights I’ll analyze the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and the US constitution.
"American citizenship is limited to people that are"born or naturalized in the United States" (as per the 14th Amendment) and the word "Everyone" in the Canadian constitution does not include fetuses" .
Furthermore,“the foundation of human rights, the text and negotiating history of the "right to life" explicitly premises human rights on birth.” 
This means that the human rights articles are irrelevant when applying it to the fetus - however this can be applied to the pregnant mother.
In addition to this, if fetuses had rights there would be many legal and social dilemmas. J. Arthur highlighted these in her paper stating that: “Fetuses would have to become dependents for tax and estate purposes, be counted in official census-taking, and be subject to many other laws affecting persons.”
“The risk of death associated with childbirth is about 10 times as high as that associated with abortion.” 
This means that in almost ANY circumstance, an abortion is safer than a pregnancy.
99% of all pregnancy related deaths occur in countries that have no option to an abortion . The correlation is evident between the lack of abortion and the maternal mortality. By the end of 2015, 303,000 mothers would have died due to the lack of abortion availability .
Does the fetus experience pain?
The question of whether or not the fetus experiences pain or not is another controversial question however the best source that we have to offer is the JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) due to the fact that it is an official book/document that has contributed in determining the legal number of weeks in which an abortion can be performed .
The journal states that “electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks,” since fetal pain can only occur at a point in the pregnancy that the US currently deems illegal, fetal pain has no place in this debate. This debate regards the legality of abortion in the US and since abortion is only legal up to in 24 - 26 weeks in the US (for the majority of Americans), the fact that pain can be experienced around the 29th/30th week is not relevant . And even if my opponent chooses to nit pick the state with the most lenient views towards abortion it only goes up to a maximum of 28 weeks - which is still not in inclusive of the 29/30th week in which the fetus is able to feel pain .
I have provided strong and well sourced evidence proving that if you ban abortion you violate libertarianism, women's human rights, the rights of teenagers / children; it also violates the law, etc. I will refute my opponent's case in the next round (after he posts his). I thank my opponent for accepting such an interesting and controversial topic. The resolution is affirmed. Vote Pro!
R.v. Morgentaler (1988); Borowski v. Attorney General of Canada (1987); Tremblay v. Daigle (1989); Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. Ms G. (1997); and others.http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html
Return To Top | Posted:
- the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. (12)
The fetus growing inside the mother is a living being; but, it is not part of the mother. It is a separate human entirely. Therefore, killing it would not only be illegal, but immoral as well.
First, fetuses have their own blood type. During the third week after the female has been fertilized, these developments happen (they count two weeks for her period and the ideal time for intercourse to conceive a child. The third week is when the actual fertilization and sexual intercourse occurs.):
"Week 5 is the start of the "embryonic period." This is when all the baby's major systems and structures develop.
The embryo's cells multiply and start to take on specific functions. This is called differentiation.
Blood cells, kidney cells, and nerve cells all develop.
The embryo grows rapidly, and the baby's external features begin to form.
Your baby's brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to develop.
Baby's gastrointestinal tract starts to form.
It is during this time in the first trimester that the baby is most at risk for damage from things that may cause birth defects. This includes certain medicines, illegal drug use, heavy alcohol use, infections such as rubella, and other factors." (1)
A part of a woman's body does not have its own organs and even blood type. Those are characteristics of a person.
A baby can feel pain around eight weeks after conception. (2) Most abortions occure before eight weeks (52.6%). However, 47.4% of abortions happen at the eight week mark and over. (3) This means that the baby is feeling pain seperate from the mother; as well as its own organs ceasing to function.
A part of a woman's body does not experience separate pain of its own body and body parts.
With the fetus showing characteristics separate from its mother, we can only naturally assume it's its own unique, functional human being.
Case 2: Women's Mental and Physical Health After Abortion
Women who consent to an abortion suffer from mental health problems after the abortion. Not only is the baby being murdered, the mothers' mind is being killed as well. A quote from my source:
"After the application of methodologically based selection criteria and extraction rules to minimize bias, the sample comprised 22 studies, 36 measures of effect and 877 181 participants (163 831 experienced an abortion). Random effects pooled odds ratios were computed using adjusted odds ratios from the original studies and PAR statistics were derived from the pooled odds ratio.
This review offers the largest quantitative estimate of mental health risks associated with abortion available in the world literature. Calling into question the conclusions from traditional reviews, the results revealed a moderate to highly increased risk of mental health problems after abortion. Consistent with the tenets of evidence-based medicine, this information should inform the delivery of abortion services." (4)
Which such a significant sample size, there is no room to doubt the result of the study. Women who experience abortions are significantly more likely to experience mental health problems post-operation. If you still aren't satisfied with my source, allow me to provide more studies to back up my claims.
"Results: Forty-one percent of women had become pregnant on at least one occasion prior to age 25, with 14.6% having an abortion. Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders. This association persisted after adjustment for confounding factors.
Conclusions: The findings suggest that abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems" (5)
"The State of California pays the costs of childbirths and abortions for low income women. A study of 173,279 California women who had a state funded childbirth or abortion in 1989 found that 53 of them committed suicide within eight years of their childbirth or abortion. A 2002 study of this data found that women who had an abortion were about 2.5 times more likely to commit suicide in the eight years following this event than women who delivered a child:" (6)
There is even more evidence to support this (9). However, I believe we should look at a very interesting study.
"IA is significantly associated with an increased risk of breast cancer among Chinese females, and the risk of breast cancer increases as the number of IA increases. If IA were to be confirmed as a risk factor for breast cancer, high rates of IA in China may contribute to increasing breast cancer rates." (14)
We can conclude abortions risk the health of women.
Case Three: Alternatives To Abortion
Taking Care of The Child:
Many adoption clinics actually offer many financial benefits to help with the pregnancy. The mother can even decide which parents the baby will have.
"All of our staff are friendly and love to work with our birth mothers.
- You'll have free housing during the adoption so you can be
- You'll have help paying your bills.
- You have the choice between an open, closed or mixed adoption.
- You choose your baby's family." (7)
Rape and Incest:
Not only can it not be proven that incest and rape actually happened, a very small percentage of abortions use the excuse of rape of incest. only 0.3% of abortions are caused by rape. Only 0.03% of abortions are due to incest. (8) If they were, why not just birth the child and put it up for adoption instead of ending a life?
Unwanted Child and Drugs:
Again, adoption. There are programs to help the child if addicted to crack/other drugs. Why would that even be a justification to kill the baby? Oh, the baby may be born addicted to crack so let's just kill it now. I don't want the baby so let's just kill it instead of putting it up for adoption and giving it a chance to live.
Return To Top | Posted:
Return To Top | Speak Round
This is the second round of the debate and is therefore dedicated to rebuttals (as per the rules). In the CX my opponent references to the living classification system and it supposedly being contradictory - I will address these point in the next round of CX and in the counter rebuttals round (ie. R3).
In my arguments round I set a debate framework. My opponent has not made any debate framework meaning that judges ought to automatically buy my framework. Even if my opponent refutes my framework thoroughly in the next round, that’d be irrelevant since it is the only framework presented and therefore it should be used in the debate (if my opponent presents a counter-framework in the next round it should be ignored because a framework is an argument and can only be presented in the arguments round).
My framework was based on libertarian values.This means that a lot of my opponent’s case is completely irrelevant. In this debate, the point that judges should be considering are life, rights and personal freedom. Other contentions are irrelevant.
For me to win, I need to show that the fetus is not living, that abortion coincides with the UDHR and that abortion gives us personal freedom.
My opponent needs to show that the fetus is living, that it is against our human rights and that it doesn’t affect our personal freedom or isn’t worth giving us additional personal freedom.
This is now the infallible framework for this debate that cannot be altered.
My opponent believes that the Oxford dictionary definition of abortion is acceptable for this debate. The problem is that we are debating whether or not the US should keep abortion legal. The Oxford dictionary definition of abortion refers to abortion generally. It talk about what abortion laws are in the US. If we were debating abortion in the UK (which is legal up to 24 weeks) we wouldn’t use the definition my opponent wants to use because we are debating about abortion in the UK so we have to use appropriate definitions which includes the correct number of weeks in which it is legal. Therefore, I believe that we should be using a more appropriate definition for abortion. My definition would be: “the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy,” which only has a minor modification from my opponent’s definition since it is now UP TO 28 weeks as opposed to MOST OFTEN performed during the first 28 weeks.
Refuting: The Moral argument
My opponent does not take any biological framework or structure in his argument. Telling me and others reading the debate that the fetus develops it’s brain at week x and that it has its own blood type, etc. is completely irrelevant unless you explain how that makes it living. A corpse has its own blood type, a corpse has a brain - is it living? If the things you listed make something living then a corpse would be living.
Judges ought to take note of the fact that my opponent uses bare assertion to classify the fetus as living. Whereas I have opted in to use an official biological definition to use.
All my opponent does here is use assertion and logical fallacies (appeals to emotion, namely).
The statistics that my opponent uses in regards to fetal pain are ridiculous. That can be deduced without the need of a source. Considering the fact that the brain only begins to form 3 weeks before the period that my opponent suggests the statistic already appears to be false. The official Journal of the American Medical Association clearly states that fetal pain probably only begin to occur at 29 - 30 weeks (which is after the 28 week period that I must affirm) .
It is unsurprising that my opponent’s source states this erroneous statistic though since it is an abortion fact site with 20 Pro life statistics on its home page and absolutely no pro choice facts (showing clear bias).
The advantage of using the Journal of the American Medical Association is that it is an unbiased document using in official medical conclusion in the US.
Next my opponent states that because something within the mother has different characteristic to the mother, that makes it living. This logic is also faulty. If the mother had a virus (which is something that is considered to be nonliving) would that make the virus living because (according to my opponent) anything in the mother that has different characteristic to her is a living thing. The same applies to food, her organs, bones, blood, etc.
On top of all of this, my opponent also fails (in every single one of his examples) to demonstrate why we should consider the fetus to be living because of this. He refers to NO biological definitions or standards. All he does is make bare assertions and assumes that we will be considering them to be true.
Right to Life
My opponent formulates a syllogism and due to its contingency on his previous contention I won’t repeat my points. Instead I’ll form an alternative syllogism.
P1: The fetus is separate from the mother but exists within her.
P2: The fetus is a host that is dependant on the mother for survival - much like the virus which is also dependant on a host (and is something that we deem to be non-living because of this)
P3: MRSGREN (an official biological life classification system) deems the fetus to be nonliving.
C1: Based on P2 and P3, the fetus is not living.
All premises and conclusion have been affirmed in my rebuttals as well as my initial case.
Violates the Hippocratic Oath
Interestingly enough, the hippocratic oath is no longer a compulsory oath for doctors to sign - though most doctors do sign an oath of some sort .
But what my opponent does here is against the spirit of debate. I’m not telling him that his position is wrong because the law in the US states that abortion should be legal. In the same way, my opponent shouldn’t be citing oaths to show that he is correct.
But alas, it doesn’t really matter considering that the Hippocratic oath is now optional.
Is it even alive?
The fetus is made up of atoms and compounds. At approximately 30 weeks the fetus is living. At this point it is a baby and is now considered to be made up of cells.
Logically if the definition of cells is small parts that make a living thing and I have managed to demonstrate that the fetus is not a living thing, then the fetus is not made up of cells. The logic is simple and my opponent (once again) uses no sources to prove that the fetus is made up of cells (only using citation for the definition of cell[s]).
Women's Mental and Physical Health After Abortion
The contention title here is very misleading. The majority of the contention focuses on a study which analyze women who had an abortion from 15 - 25 meaning that if we assume that the people are evenly distributed via age (since the distribution is not given in the source) that 60% of the woman had not done their degrees, 30% didn’t have a proper job (though it’s probably closer to 60% given the university-job contingency) and 100% of them are too young according to an in depth study which analysed all research done in an attempt conclude the ideal age for having a child.
All these factors lead to these mental health problems. So the problem is more likely to be the age of pregnancy than it is to do with the abortion.
And what my opponent fails to note is that actually a person at this age actually continuing with the pregnancy is likely to get worse mental health problems than if they had an abortion. So both ways mental health difficulties occur - though with the pregnancy (which my opponent proposes) the mental health impacts are significantly worse.
Your chances of postpartum depression are increased by 100% as a teenage mother as well as other miscellaneous mental health problems that are increased in probability .
My opponent’s next point regards breast cancer chances being increased. This is a particularly interesting point since there was a lot of debate and controversy about this point a few years ago. The official, government cancer treatment/awareness website (cancer.gov) states that after an in depth study they concluded that there was no link between abortion/miscarriages and breast cancer. Let’s consider that we are comparing my source (a worldwide government sourced cancer website against my opponent’s citation which is a source published by a Pro life writer. The more credible citation is clear. 
I should also note that it is now considered to be a truism that breast cancer and abortion do not correlate (though most people don’t know this which is why it’s always interesting when somebody brings this up) .
Refuting: Alternatives to Abortion
Adoption is a terrible alternative that people continuously use. In the past 5 years abortion rates have been roughly 700,000 to 900,000 abortions (for some reason I was unable to find 2015 abortion statistics or 2016 approximations) .
My opponent proposes that we use adoption as an abortion alternative. Approximately 135,000 adoptions occur per year. That’ll leave 565,000 - 765,000 children who are left unadopted. What does my opponent propose we do with them? The reality is that we do not have enough willing foster parents to look after all these fetus’ that people would ideally want to abort.
Rape and Incest
I am aware that rape is a minor impact however it is completely untrue that it cannot be proven. There can be physical injuries, DNA evidence, inconsistent stories, etc. All of this helps to prove whether rape occurred or not.
Unwanted Child and Drugs
The adoption argument has already been refuted above. As for the the drugs, I’m really puzzled at what my opponent is talking about. I never once made an argument about any babies being born addicted to drugs or anything of this sort. Since I never made this argument, the pre-emptive rebuttal is irrelevant.
Now my opponent makes a clear rebuttal in the arguments round. This is a violation of the rules of the debate which could justify an auto-loss for my opponent. Though I won’t make a big deal out of it if judges decide not to count it.
Since this is a rebuttal, I will not refute it until the counter rebuttals round (ie. R3).
My opponent has made a huge number of assertions, logical fallacies and bias/fallacious sources. Most (if not all) of his factual claims have been incorrect or irrelevant. At this point in the debate it is incredibly clear where the resolution lies. It is clearly affirmed. Over to Con.
Return To Top | Posted:
“The neural pathways are present for pain to be experienced quite early by unborn babies,” explains Steven Calvin, M.D., perinatologist, chair of the Program in Human Rights Medicine, University of Minnesota, where he teaches obstetrics.
Medical facts of fetal pain
Anatomical studies have documented that the body’s pain network—the spino-thalamic pathway—is established by 20 weeks gestation.
• “At 20 weeks, the fetal brain has the full complement of brain cells present in adulthood, ready and waiting to receive pain signals from the body, and their electrical activity can be recorded by standard electroencephalography (EEG).”
— Dr. Paul Ranalli, neurologist, University of Toronto
• An unborn baby at 20 weeks gestation “is fully capable of experiencing pain. … Without question, [abortion] is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to such a surgical procedure.”
— Robert J. White, M.D., PhD., professor of neurosurgery, Case Western University
Unborn babies have heightened sensitivities
Unborn babies at 20 weeks development actually feel pain more intensely than adults. This is a “uniquely vulnerable time, since the pain system is fully established, yet the higher level pain-modifying system has barely begun to develop,” according to Dr. Ranalli.
“Having administered anesthesia for fetal surgery, I know that on occasion we need to administer anesthesia directly to the fetus, because even at these early gestational ages the fetus moves away from the pain of the stimulation,” stated David Birnbach, M.D., president of the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology and self-described as “pro-choice,” in testimony before the U.S. Congress.
Given the medical evidence that unborn babies experience pain, compassionate people are viewing abortion more and more as an inhumane and intolerable brutality against defenseless human beings.
The unborn baby at 20 weeks
Fetal development is already quite advanced at 20 weeks gestation:
• The skeleton is complete and reflexes are present at 42 days.
• Electrical brain wave patterns can be recorded at 43 days. This is usually ample evidence that “thinking” is taking place in the brain.
• The fetus has the appearance of a miniature baby, with complete fingers, toes and ears at 49 days.
• All organs are functioning—stomach, liver, kidney, brain—and all systems are intact at 56 days.
• By 20 weeks, the unborn child has hair and working vocal cords, sucks her thumb, grasps with her hands and kicks. She measures 12 inches." (3)
"We know that pain if definitely felt after 29 weeks; but we don't know if it is felt sooner."
Pain? What of just comfort?
The unborn baby not only feels pain but will maneuver himself around in the womb to a comfortable position: 
One of the most uncomfortable ledges that the unborn can encounter is his mother’s backbone. If he happens to be lying so that his own backbone is across hers [when the mother lies on her back], the unborn will wiggle around until he can get away from this highly disagreeable position.
But isn’t pain mostly psychological?
Don't be fooled into thinking that the unborn baby "only" suffers psychological pain (before being killed): 
There is also organic, or physiological pain which elicits a neurological response to pain.
But early on there is no cerebral cortex for thinking, therefore the baby feels no pain, right? Wrong.
The cerebral cortex isn’t needed to feel pain. The thalamus is needed and (as mentioned above) the thalamus is functioning at 8 weeks. Even complete removal of the cortex does not eliminate the sensation of pain: 
Indeed there seems to be little evidence that pain information reaches the sensory cortex.
OK, unborn babies can feel real physical pain in the womb. But do they feel pain during an abortion?
This really hit the fan during the 1996 debate in the U.S. Congress over a law to ban partial birth abortions. Pro-abortionists had claimed that the anaesthetic had already killed the fetal baby. Top officials of the U.S. Society for Obstetric Anaesthesia & Perinatology vigorously denied this explaining that usual anaesthesia did not harm the baby. 
This brought the issue of fetal pain into the news, and testimony was given to the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the U.S. House of Representatives: 
The fetus within this time frame of gestation, 20 weeks and beyond, is fully capable of experiencing pain. Without doubt a partial birth abortion is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant.
Additionally, babies in the womb might actually be MORE sensitive to pain: 
Far from being less able to feel pain, such premature newborns may be more sensitive to pain...that babies under 30 weeks have a newly established pain system that is raw and unmodified at this tender age.
And even more data.
Data in the British Medical Journal, Lancet, gave solid confirmation of such pain. It is known that the fetal umbilical cord has no pain receptors such as the rest of the fetal body. Accordingly, they tested fetal hormone stress response comparing puncturing of the abdomen and of the cord. They observed: 
The fetus reacts to intrahepatic (liver) needling with vigorous body and breathing movements, but not to cord needling. The levels of these hormones did not vary with fetal age.
Another excellent British study commented on this: 
It cannot be comfortable for the fetus to have a scalp electrode implanted on his skin, to have blood taken from the scalp or to suffer the skull compression that may occur even with spontaneous delivery. It is hardly surprising that infants delivered by difficult forceps extraction act as if they have a severe headache." (7)
Method After the application of methodologically based selection criteria and extraction rules to minimise bias, the sample comprised 22 studies, 36 measures of effect and 877 181 participants (163 831 experienced an abortion). Random effects pooled odds ratios were computed using adjusted odds ratios from the original studies and PAR statistics were derived from the pooled odds ratios.
Results Women who had undergone an abortion experienced an 81% increased risk of mental health problems, and nearly 10% of the incidence of mental health problems was shown to be attributable to abortion. The strongest subgroup estimates of increased risk occurred when abortion was compared with term pregnancy and when the outcomes pertained to substance use and suicidal behaviour.
Conclusions This review offers the largest quantitative estimate of mental health risks associated with abortion available in the world literature. Calling into question the conclusions from traditional reviews, the results revealed a moderate to highly increased risk of mental health problems after abortion. Consistent with the tenets of evidence-based medicine, this information should inform the delivery of abortion services."
"A 2002 study of this data found that women who had an abortion were about 2.5 times more likely to commit suicide in the eight years following this event than women who delivered a child:"
My opponent dropped those two studies entirely. However, I believe he was referencing this study:
""Results: Forty-one percent of women had become pregnant on at least one occasion prior to age 25, with 14.6% having an abortion. Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders. This association persisted after adjustment for confounding factors.
Conclusions: The findings suggest that abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems"
His study does not account for when the baby was given up for adoption. His study deals with depression almost exclusively with the excuse of stress to leading to other mental disorders (which you can get from everyday life). Meanwhile, my studies go over many different effects that could happen because of an abortion including depression. Thus, abortion is more detrimental to women's mental health than keeping it would be.
NOTE: his only study against my mental health studies only involve teen mothers and not adult mothers. Therefore, a large amount of mothers are left out of his study; making my studies more relevant.
Now, I've shown how studies sponsored by the government can be wrong. Allow me to explain how my study is more relevant.
His study was conducted on animals. Mine was conducted on humans.
His study was one scientific workshop. My study was made from a total of two cohort studies and thirty-four case-controlled studies.
As quoted by my study:
We searched three English databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Wiley) and three Chinese databases (CNKI, WanFang, and VIP) for studies up to December 2012, supplemented by manual searches. Two reviewers independently conducted the literature searching, study selection, and data extraction and quality assessment of included studies. Random effects models were used to estimate the summary odds ratios (ORs) and the 95 % confidence intervals (CIs).
A total of 36 articles (two cohort studies and 34 case–control studies) covering 14 provinces in China were included in this review. Compared to people without any history of IA, an increased risk of breast cancer was observed among females who had at least one IA (OR = 1.44, 95 % CI 1.29–1.59, I2 = 82.6 %, p < 0.001, n = 34). No significant publication bias was found among the included studies (Egger test, p = 0.176). The risk increased to 1.76 (95 % CI 1.39–2.22) and 1.89 (95 % CI 1.40–2.55) for people who had at least two IAs and at least three IAs, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed similar results to the primary results. Meta-regression analysis of the included studies found that the association between IA and breast cancer risk attenuated with increasing percent of IA in the control group (β = −0.022, p < 0.001).
IA is significantly associated with an increased risk of breast cancer among Chinese females, and the risk of breast cancer increases as the number of IA increases. If IA were to be confirmed as a risk factor for breast cancer, high rates of IA in China may contribute to increasing breast cancer rates."
It is clear that my study is more reliable.
Rebuttal 7: Adoption
Here are the problems I have with his case:
1. He assumes that all mothers who had an abortion will choose adoption. It is logical to assume that some of the mothers would choose to keep the baby instead.
2. Abortion is now viewed as a form of contraceptive. As quoted:
"46% did not use contraception during the month they became pregnant
It was not a rebuttal. I needed an example for my case and I used that one. I'm sorry if you think I was aiming to refute anything early.
Return To Top | Posted:
Return To Top | Speak Round
Return To Top | Posted:
Return To Top | Posted: