The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
12 Points


Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 10 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,490 times Debate No: 21137
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




Abortion should be illegal. If a woman is running around having unprotected sex with either one guy or multiple partners, that woman and that man should take full responsibilities for what precautions they did not take. Imagine ripping a life out of the woman's womb. The baby is innocent and had nothing to do with you and your partners carelessness so why punish it? For example say this woman is trying to relieve some stress and goes out with her girls to a party. Relieving some of this tension this woman decides to drink some vodka shots and some tequila, wakes up the next morning and a few weeks later she finds out that she is pregnant. Not knowing who the father is she decides to go to a clinic where she has to take a pill and the fetus will just flush out. How gruesome is that, forcing yourself to have a miscarriage because you got drunk and didn't know what you were doing. Well now the woman is sober and she does know what she is doing she is taking an innocent life and the mother knows.
My next point is that financially you and your partner are not capable of providing a safe home for the child. To nip this in the butt you have choices to make such as give the baby to a relative and when you two are ready take the baby back or simply put the baby up for adoption. Many couples are trying to have a baby but can't and you can provide them with a healthy baby and the baby in a nice home as opposed to death the "easy" way put of this. Putting the baby up for adoption would be the best possible choice because you and your partner will feel happy knowing that your baby will be safe, have a happy life, and you won't have to live with the fact that you didn't have to kill your first born similar to what Abraham almost had to do with Isaac. The next best thing to do is give your baby up to a close family member because than you could know for certain that the baby is perfectly fine. One can go across town and visit the baby when ever the couple wanted to and the family will still remain close.
One of my last points in which I will defiantly expand on later is the fact that women get postpartum depression. Imagine a woman who keeps her child but still feels depressed now compare her to a woman who was three months pregnant and is having her baby removed from her by unnatural causes the mother and the baby obviously will be negatively effected. With therapy a woman with a naturally born baby will recover from her experience but how do we know for certain that the mother who aborted her baby will ever recover? We don't, women are very emotional and in this situation a man will be emotional too little things will remind her of what she has done and it won't be pretty. The woman could go back to her old ways of partying or start abusing drugs or crying her eyes out every minute or something to fill up the void. My major idea that I am trying to portray is the fact that this baby you didn't plan to have is an innocent life and I don't want to see the baby be put at harm for something two horny teenagers didn't take it serious enough and risked the life of someone else.


I thank my opponent for offering a very general debate and I will do my best to maintain the Pro position considering my long absence from DDO.

Con presented his/her position in absolute terms:

Abortion should be illegal.

As Pro, I will take the position that abortion should be legal in the United States for a one reason.

Abortion – [T]he removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.

I am using this definition to avoid the discussion of ectopic pregnancies (which is beneficial to me as Pro), but I reserve the right to reference such pregnancies should my opponent present a "life at conception" argument; he hinted at such an argument, but did not clarify it. "From the uterus" is the important phrase for this distinction.

Pro position: Con's position is absolute; therefore, I will submit that abortion should be legal since carrying a fetus to term could result in the death of the mother.

[Although I will not take the position in this debate, I support reproductive rights in ALL cases. I am only examining a few arguments here.]

If Con clarifies his/her position in this five round debate, then I will adjust.

Potential Death of the Mother:

In 2010, Amnesty International urged President Obama and the US to examine our maternal mortality rate. Minorities were affected disproportionately in respect to prenatal care and "near misses" –cases of near death, increased 25% since 1998.

The US maternal mortality rate is further examined here, and the results reflect the title: "A Human Rights Failure".

Even in one of the most medically advanced countries in the world, maternal mortality is still not addressed well. The potential for death puts the medical decision in the hands of the woman and no one else. No law abiding citizen need be forced into a life and death struggle to satisfy the changing moral whims of others. Outlawing abortion would make the decision for the mother in absence of medical necessity and such a condition cannot stand in a republic.

Rebuttal of Con arguments:

Con wants us to consider the drunken party girl and her irresponsible partner, or partners, but a maternal death could occur regardless of the circumstances inducing a pregnancy so these arguments are irrelevant. My position, only for this debate, is that abortion should be allowed in the case of maternal death, vodka and tequila shots notwithstanding.

In addition, Con thinks unwanted pregnancy is a condition of partying, alcohol, and illicit sex, but he/she does not address the married woman who does not wish to carry a nine month pregnancy. Con goes through and asks us to "imagine" many things, but simple Google searches with remove the "imagine" and allow Con to present some statistics – I will address these agreements should he/she choose to present them.

In light of my position, I see no need to mention post partum depression as the topic is irrelevant.

Con presented little in the opening round and he must address the maternal death issue considering my position. Without addressing this issue, his/her argument cannot stand.

Very Truly Yours,
Debate Round No. 1


I would also like to thank you for accepting my challenge as you said it is your first time back to DDO and it is my first time here so please bare with me thank you.

My example about the postpartum depression has correlation between a pregnant woman and a woman who choses the path to terminate her pregnancy. Which is a condition called Post Abortion Depression which is similar to Post dramatic stress disorder.

In that article it explains what I was trying to explain and provides examples about studies such as the American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse conducted.

My point is the woman that do for what ever reason, they want to get an abortion does not only effect the baby as the article stated. Women suffer from sever mental disorders after this procedure which leads to a higher suicidal rate for the woman. Now instead of aborting this innocent fetus we have ended the mothers life too. I will digress a little, we can't leave out the father's in this situation and from my own perception this man who had a baby by accident has lost his child and the mother of the baby. So this also effects the father too and could possibly lead him to depression.

Following your point about the article you posted, about the maternal death rates from I understand that there are cases were the women have certain complications. From my interpretation of the article it seems like these women want these babies. The article states that "Minorities, those living in poverty, Native American and immigrant women [...] are particularly affected." These women were not financially stable since article clearly states poverty and they should not have tried to bring a baby in this world if they could not provide for the kid. Speaking about pregnancy complication it is difficult for a couple to hear the news that there is a chance the mother will be ill if she goes through with the pregnancy. In your article the Larry Cox says,
"Mothers die not because the United States can't provide good care, but because it lacks the political will to make sure good care is available to all women,"
Women should be provided with equal health care so hopefully abortion rates will decrease. Basically, a woman who has complications can chose to take the risk and the risk is more rewarding because there can be a chance that the new life will survive and that is better than killing him/her off.
My next point is to expand on adoption as opposed to abortion. Women who have no complications with there babies and are healthy but are not ready to have a baby yet because it may not be the time they have the choice of giving the baby up for adoption.

Mistakes happen in life but as the article states the birth mother can provide her baby with a loving home and with a family who is financially stable. I and I am sure that others agree that enduring the pain for 9 months of pregnancy is more rewarding than terminating your child.


I thank Con for his response, and after a review of his 2nd round, I see no compelling reason to justify the illegality of abortion considering the issue of maternal death.

Con opens with a justification for the illegality of abortion by citing post abortion depression.

As support, Con links an article from the American Spectator by an author who champions pro life positions. Mr. Allot has many articles supporting his anti abortion stance in a variety of conservative news publicans. I would love to see the study he references, but he does not provide a source. Some anti abortion sites list the report in the same vague terms as Mr. Allot, but they do not link it or give me any information so I can examine it myself. These sites seem to be echo chambers. At this point I cannot consider Mr. Allot's reference to the report credible.

In addition, the New England Journal of Medicine contends that much of the information concerning post abortion depression is not supported by scientific research.
And will serve to disrupt the doctor/patient relationship.

Even if Con and Mr. Allot can show that abortion may result in post abortion depression, neither addresses the situation that is the basis for my position – maternal death. I need only show one case where an abortion is less risky than a full term pregnancy. I can.

Just this year peer reviewed research as shown that abortion is much less risky than childbirth.
Here is the Reuters article.

And you can see the journal is linked at the bottom so you can at least read the abstract or check out the issue at the library.

In light of peer reviewed research, I submit that an abortion, in general, is much safer than childbirth in some cases; therefore, Pro's contention concerning post abortion depression is not supported.

Con's contentions concerning maternal death rates:

Con agrees that complications occur during pregnancy and supports equal access to healthcare – we can agree here but he does wish to note that women referenced in the Amnesty article want to have a baby. I cannot see this distinction, nor do I find it relevant so I see no need to discuss it until Con can show why it is important

Adoption may be a valid option for some women, but doesn't address the issue at hand (maternal death). Adoption may be a better choice for some mothers, but in light of the current situation concerning the mortality rate in childbirth; it certainly isn't the best choice for everyone.

Please remember, Con, that your resolution is absolute and no woman will have a choice when it comes to her own reproductive health. At this point, Con has not adequately dealt with the problem presented by maternal death.
Debate Round No. 2


A counter argument to your maternal death rates due to complications during pregnancy is that there are also complications during the abortion procedure.
The article states on a world wide scale about 42 million woman choose abortion while nearly half of them are unsafe and woman could potentially die and some woman can have serious health complications after the fact of the abortion.
Also in this article:
The article mentions: About 6 chances in 100,000 for childbirth and about 3 chances in 100,000 for abortion. To put these probabilities into perspective, a woman's chances of dying in childbirth are equal to those of being killed in a car accident.
There are a numerous of risks for both cases so either perspective the both of us put it in whether pro choice or pro life there are risks either way.
To clear up the car accident statistic in relation to the deaths.

"At this point I cannot consider Mr. Allot's reference to the report credible."
This statement was in your argument about the post-abortion depression. Since Mr. Allot's study link was not provided you cannot believe this to be correct but, in the article you provided from the New England Journal it clearly states,"The law also requires that doctors give pregnant women a description of medical and "statistically significant" risks of abortion, among which it includes depression and other psychological distress, suicide, danger to subsequent pregnancies, and death."
Which since you did provide this article and read through and saw that there were psychological dangers due to abortion my argument stands credible.

Furthermore a fetus is born in the moment of conception
As number 1 states the basic elementary definition of life begins during fertilization. Once the sperm reaches the egg the baby has life to it and killing the baby will be against our morals. Also it is a helpless baby and obviously has no say in anything we need to protect the babies rights of life and provide for him/her
In the same article I would like to point out number 4 where after 20 weeks the fetus can actually feel the pain according to Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology

A major reason why women are getting abortions is because of there age many girls today are getting pregnant at 15-19 years old which is relatively young. A way for these girls to not get in trouble is ending the pregnancy which is a way to save them selves but not thinking about there child and there responsibility.
Page 3 of 24 states it under the age and adolescence tab.

Also another point I'll address is that when a woman does get an abortion she is also likely to get a second abortion.
26.2% of women who aborted had experienced one previous abortion; 11.2% had two previous abortions, and 7.5% had three or more previous abortions. Why haven't these woman learned there lesson before? If these woman have to go through three abortions than they are cruel.


Thank you for your response. After reading the peer reviewed report (abstract, but we have enough to work with) and the other sources linked in your previous round, I found even more compelling evidence to reject the Con position. At this point, I can see no way for Con to secure support.

I am doing my best to clash in this debate. Con still has not adequately addressed maternal death, nor has he addressed the absolute nature of his position – abortion should be illegal.

As I stated in the last round, even if Con can show that abortion causes post abortion depression, he is still not addressing my contention, maternal death. I responded to claims of post abortion depression because this is the only near relevant position Con presented after my first round.

I will take Con's arguments in the order that he presented them:

Complications to Abortion:
I agree there are complications to abortion; it is an operation and all operations have complications, but those complications, as clearly stated in the study, result in less deaths than those associated with childbirth for some women. This point is all I needed to show your position does not consider these risks in any capacity. Your position does not even consider these matters since abortion should always be illegal.

Con goes further and quotes the worldwide stats from a peer reviewed journal – thank you so much. I was going to leave the worldwide stats alone (hence the reason I focused on the US) but you brought them in so I will quote from your source:

"Both of the primary methods for preventing unsafe abortion—less restrictive abortion laws and greater contraceptive use—face social, religious, and political obstacles, particularly in developing nations, where most unsafe abortions (97%) occur."

Con, you are supposed to be attacking my position concerning maternal death. Instead, you presented the most restrictive abortion position, "abortion should be illegal" and provided stats showing that restrictive abortion laws are a leading cause in maternal death worldwide. Again, thank you.

The maternal death rate from abortion vs. childbirth:

Con relies on yet another anti abortion source to show that these rates are nearly the same. As I said, even if he can do this, he is still avoiding the elephant in the room. Now, Con suggests that the statistics provided are small (6/100,000 childbirth and 3/100,000 for abortion). The 6/100,000 is relative to dying in a car crash and Con supports the car crash analogy with a source (which his original source failed to do – nice work Con)

Here is the problem though – Con's source jumped through some pretty fantastic hoops to get to this number. As shown in the "Redefining the Parameters" section of the report, This group made up a term called "birth avoidance mortality" so they could include deaths related to IUDs, hysterectomies, oral contraceptives, etc. I invite all reviewers to read this section and decide whether this redefinition is supported. I see little to consider here.

Mr. Allot's credibility in relation to an unlinked study:

Link the study and settle the issue. You, and many anti abortion sites, referenced this study. Where is it? I consider his reference less than credible because he does not give me the details I need to find it. I concede that depression may occur after an abortion, but the effects and the magnitude are not supported in the literature. The report I linked, and you quoted, said as much.

Life at Conception:
Con uses a horrible source that links another horrible source. Both are steeped in religiosity and the definition of life provided in the first can apply to crystal formations. As I made clear in the first round, you could have avoided a "life at conception" argument and I offered a helpful definition for you to do so, but you have now articulated this position so ectopic pregnancies have come into play. (See 1st round response)

Ectopic Pregnancies:

As stated very clearly in this source:

"An ectopic pregnancy is an abnormal pregnancy that occurs outside the womb (uterus). The baby (fetus) cannot survive, and often does not develop at all in this type of pregnancy."

The death rate for ectopic pregnancy in the US is now at 0.1%. Why? Because the pregnancy is terminated safely. Your stance "abortion is illegal" combined with "a fetus is born in the moment of conception" puts women in great danger. Under your position, terminating an ectopic pregnancy is abortion and can no longer be tolerated. Do you wish to reconsider your position?

Further Information:

Con explains that youth (15-19) is a major reason for abortion rates but his own source states that of the abortions reported, women from 15-19 accounted for 16.5% in the study. I don't consider 16% to be a major reason. Please support this statement and explain why it is relevant to your position that ectopic pregnancies cannot be terminated.

Lastly, Con says that a woman that gets an abortion is likely to get a second one, or third but the same data shows that a majority of abortions in all states that participated in the study are first time abortions. See Table 19

Now, explain your position in light of maternal death especially concerning ectopic pregnancies. Under your rule the answer is simple: Let them die.
Debate Round No. 3


I would like to address your fact about the Ectopic Pregnancy death rate. I found an article that states 9% of mothers pass away during these situations on an annual basis.

"More than 40% of all women will end a pregnancy by abortion at some time in their reproductive lives."

And there are about 4 million babies born in the United States annually.

So if a woman does have an Ectopic pregnancy the risks of the mother passing away is 4,000,000 * .09 = 360,000 related deaths a year. And if I do the same for the percentage of the abortions, 4,000,000 * .4= 1,600,000 deaths in relation to legally killing off your infant. So I have seen your percentage of maternal deaths and I searched up furthermore statistics of Ectopic Pregnancies and my elective abortion and the Elective abortion seems to to sky rocket over your 360,000 Ectopic pregnancies.
e�lec�tive   [ih-lek-tiv] Show IPA
open to choice; optional; not required: an elective subject in college; elective surgery.
Definition founded on

Roe V Wade was a woman who wanted an abortion and because she was not financially stabled and gave up her first two children up for adoption and could not afford an unsafe abortion in her home town so she went to the courts which later stated she could get an abortion she was on the pro-choice side.

thirty-six years later Roe would regret the choice she made of infanticide and has converted to a pro-life advocate. The woman who made abortion legal wishes she never made that choice of fighting for that "right" to be a murderer. People make mistakes her mistake was fighting to have abortions and people make the mistake of having unprotected sex and getting pregnant and aborting the baby. So don't punish the little defenseless fetus and kill it off.

I was doing a quick re-read of your arguments and I have addressed your maternal death rates with my abortion death rates. You brought up the fact that Ectopic pregnancies also cause maternal death which is the same idea really and I came back with the elective abortion rates annually. I have also brought up the subject of Adoption, and Roe vs Wade and ideas, and concepts about given situations. I have explained post-abortion depression and the risks that follow the syndrome. I have provided facts that girls have been getting pregnant from age 15-19 and getting abortions which that is the crisp age of partying and drinking in an adolescents life which pertains to my example of the drinking. So in my arguments I have addressed all these points and you have addressed mothers dying and restating my words and explaining why they shouldn't be credible. But instead of trying to find ways to demoralize my arguments when all you speak about is one idea... Maternal Death rate which at the end of the process if the abortion is not preformed the pregnancy results in a death but my counter argument is the mother is in danger and the kid needs to be aborted if the abortion process is complete my argument results in a death but heres the difference. The mother chose to murder this baby. The child did not chose to kill his mother. So please don't bring up the fact that I did not address your maternal death rate because theres deaths in both situations and the harming of a baby is a million times worse.


Put simply, Con has not addressed maternal death. I will show you:

After pushing away the offered definition, Con proposed that life starts at conception. Because he offered that "abortion should be illegal," he has to handle ectopic pregnancies as a termination of this very dangerous medical condition would be outlawed under Con's absolute law. Con does not offer a medical exception. Abortion is illegal, period. Because abortion is illegal, a woman with an ectopic pregnancy will have to carry to term. The 9% death rate is low because the pregnancies are terminated. Under Con's law, the death rate will sky rocket. Under Con's law any woman who would need an abortion due to a potentially high risk pregnancy will simply be out of luck. All he can say at this point is, "let them die." I made an effort to allow Con to avoid this troublesome position, but he elected to take it anyway.

He has no other choice but to defend this cruelty as he backed himself into a corner with the life at conception position. When I write that he has not addressed this point, I am asking him to follow his law to its logical conclusion. He won't do this because it is as cruel as it sounds. Instead of addressing this major point, the biggest in this debate, he changes the subject. Now we will talk more about statistics as this is the closest Con has come to addressing maternal death – presenting rates and numbers.

Ectopic Pregnancy:

Con presents some numbers to say the death rate of ectopic pregnancy is low. I don't care if it was lower. Please follow through and say, "Only 360,000 will die, let them. Abortion should still be illegal." This point is your logical conclusion. Now, the death rate of 9% is a product of termination. The risk of carrying an ectopic pregnancy to term is astronomical:

"Although there have been a few reported cases of women giving birth by cesarean section to live infants that were located outside the uterus, this is extremely rare. The chance of carrying an ectopic pregnancy to full term is so remote, and the risk to the woman so great, that it can never be recommended."

You won't allow these procedures, as such; the numbers you presented are not relevant. All the numbers in the world do not fix this matter for you.

Elective Abortion:
Your law bans ALL abortions, elective or otherwise, so these numbers are, again, irrelevant.

Roe v. Wade:
And? What does this have to do with maternal death rates and the rise of such rates under your law? This is off topic.

Con allowed me to take a very safe position in this debate. I need not worry about elective abortions as I am only concerned about medical necessity. Going into our conclusions, Con should be honest and say, outright, that he knows mothers will die because his law will not allow them to make a choice based on medical necessity. I don't see how he has any other choice.
Debate Round No. 4


As you say that I should come right out with saying that mothers will die I can tell you let babies be murdered. The whole point on my stance against abortion is the fact that the fetus does not get any say it what should happen. Doesn't the baby have a right to live and it should be our job to protect it's rights.

When you stated the fact that there are deaths in the mothers part and I came back and stated that abortions can cause a woman's death you agreed that there are complications with any type of operation. Pregnancies are a form of natural surgeries and there are complications with pregnancies. But if there is a case where the mother is experiencing complications the baby should have a right to live and the doctor should make a choice to help both of therm survive.

Because what your stating is there are complications in the pregnancies and the mother's are dying since they don't have enough money and/or insurance to cover the procedure we will just kill off the baby in order to save the mother.

But what you are stating has almost two debates in one you speak of our abortion topic but the second has to do with our healthcare. If the patient doesn't have enough money for her or her child to survive should we turn the other way?

There provided is a description of a doctor "Doctors make people healthier. When people get sick, doctors figure out why." As stated in the article the doctor should provide the patient with quick alternate decisions other that abortions because he or she is meant to make people healthier not to end a life (the doctor is not God nor should he play God) that is just starting.

Also during this argument I have provided many alternatives that woman can do that are not abortion like adoption which is probably the best method to choose from because it could prevent depression of the mother and provide happiness to another couple that is in desire for a new little member of the family. Now the families will split there ways and won't have to feel guilty if they did actually chose to kill the baby.

I have also provided in the past arguments that fetus after 20 weeks feel pain. This is a major problem with abortions because not only are we taking away a life we are also causing the baby pain.

I feel that the pain and termination of a life is both a cruel punishment to both the fetus and the mother, the mother will lose her child and risks such as the post-abortion depression, and then the family morning of the death of a child. Also the fetus will be punished obviously the outcome is death.

So in conclusion abortion should be illegal because it goes against our morals of "Thou shall not kill" its against religious laws and the states laws are just the same. So my main question throughout out this whole debate is why is this situation acceptable to preform.

I would like to thank you for completing this debate with me and as I said it was my first time on this website and thank you for bearing with me.


I thank my opponent for offering this debate.

My conclusion is simple: Con's law would result in more maternal deaths due to its absolute nature.

Under Con's law, a woman with an ectopic pregnancy is likely to die, and Con appears to accept this premise. I understand that Con does not want any woman to die, much less a pregnant woman, but his law allows as much, and he did not show a compelling reason to allow this increase in maternal death. Hoping that both the mother and child live is not enough to compel a female onto such dangerous ground.

I have little concern over any issue in this debate other than maternal death, despite my position that abortion should not hinge on such a matter. I did not see a need to debate any other issue. All the material I presented suggests that maternal death rates would increase under Con's new law and such a position is not desirable.

Maternal Death: Con presented an absolute resolution and I chose to combat the position by showing that abortion is much less dangerous than childbirth for some women. Updated statistics show that I am correct. This fact, in combination with the dangers of ectopic pregnancies is more than enough to reject Con's position.

I see no need for a long conclusion. Thank you for the debate and I look forward to seeing you on the site.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Maikuru 10 years ago
No problem. I hope you stick around for a while!
Posted by sherlockmethod 10 years ago
Thank you for taking time to read and vote on our debate. Nice to see you are still here, Maikuru.
Posted by Maikuru 10 years ago
I'll read and vote on this today.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 10 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gets persuasion points because Con never effectively responded to Pro's point about some abortions being medically necessary. Pro gets S&G point because Con's grammar was ragged. I recommend that Con familiarize himself with the difference in "effect" and "affect." We can start a thread grammar in the forums if he wants help. I don't normally vote points for sources, but Pro's were so much better than Con's that I'm doing so this time.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 10 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con proposed an all-encompassing position (i.e. no abortions allowed) but could not (or would not, it's difficult to tell) defend against Pro's reasonable exception (i.e. maternal death). This was Pro's sole rebuttal, yet Con spent the majority of the debate discussing a laundry list of other issues. Pro needed only to show one case in which Con's position failed and he did so using appropriate sources, including Con's own. Con should have focused exclusively on fighting this point.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.