The Instigator
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
abyteofbrain
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

Abortion Should Be Illegal In the United States

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 4 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,418 times Debate No: 40673
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (4)

 

Mikal

Con

Resolution : Abortion should be illegal or banned within the United States. This is from a poll, and we agreed to the stipulations prior to this.

My adversary is taking on the BOP as he is pro and supports this topic.

R1/Me : Rules
R2/adversary : He shall start his round promptly and give reasons as to why abortion should be banned or not legal in the United States

R2/Me : I shall present my case as well.
R2/Adversary : He shall offer rebuttals to my case, as well as reforming his contentions

R3/Me : I shall offer rebuttals and reform my contentions
R3/Adversary : He shall finalize his points and offer contentions once more. This is also his closing statements

R4/Me : I shall offer contentions, crystallize my points, and offer closing statements.
R4/Adversary : He shall simply type, no round as agreed upon.
abyteofbrain

Pro

Thank you for the debate.

First, I think that it needs to be recognized, that the main question is weather or not "humans" are always "people", meaning that fetuses and/or mentally/physically disabled humans have the right to be treated as a person by law. This assumes that we agree that murder is wrong, and is defined as "a person killing an innocent person".

So first of all, why is a fetus not considered a person? The differences are: time alive, location, physical development/ability, and mental development/ability. I think that the last two are probably what you consider to be the determining factors. Correct me if I'm wrong. So if a fetus were to be born, but ceased to develop, wouldn't it always be ok to kill it under your point of view? What about if I were to cut off all of your limbs, eyes, tongue, and puncture your eardrums (pardon the gore), would that make you a non-person?

The fetus begins to form into a human from the moment of fertilization; the fetus is always a living organism. If you believe that a fetus should not be treated as a person, then you should ask yourself if you would be willing to kill an animal for these same reasons. A fetus or zygote has the DNA of a human and will never become anything else. A fetus is a young human (I've actually seen people try to deny this), and is always human despite the changes that occur.

The line for acceptable abortion is frequently drawn when the baby can survive without the mother. This line makes no sense because technology advancements are consistently making babies able to survive without their mother at a consistently earlier age.

Abortion is harmful to the mother in many ways; many women regret aborting their children, abortion is dangerous, sometimes resulting in death or serious illness, and it greatly increases the risk of ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, and pelvic inflammatory disease. (1)

Adoption is a great option for those who can't or won't take care of their own children. The only reason against adoption is purely selfish: the mother not wanting to know that the person exists because of her actions, and that she wasn't willing to raise it/him/her.

I would like to point out, that extramarital sex is still wrong even from an atheistic perspective because of the damage to society. It spreads AIDS rampantly, raises the issue of abortion, causes divorce, and causes much emotional turmoil.

At the least, killing a fetus is still killing a creature, even giving this option to a woman because of her own foolishness is somewhat absurd. In the case of rape, which would you rather kill, the rapist, or the innocent fetus? The fetus is innocent; it hasn't even had the chance to cause offense. If I can prove that the fetus is a person, which I believe to have already done, then abortion is murder. To make abortion legal only for rape is completely illogical, because it would be almost impossible to prove rape, and the court trial would draw unwanted attention. Medical attention soon after rape can prevent pregnancy.

There is much more to lose if pro-choice ideas are wrong, than if the pro-life ideas are wrong.

1: http://womensissues.about.com......
Debate Round No. 1
Mikal

Con

Premise 1 : If abortion should not be legal, it should illegal.

Premise 2: If abortion is illegal then it should be illegal(remove the practice of) in every circumstance

Premise 3: If there are circumstances that justify an abortion then it should be not be illegal but remain legal.

Note my adversary is claiming that abortion should be illegal.

Illegal - not allowed by the law : not legal[1]

Premise 1 and 2

These require no defense but are just logical steps to arrive at p3. If abortion should not be legal, then it should in fact be illegal. This is the stance my adversary is taking. By illegal, he is accepting the fact that abortion should be banned in every circumstance and that the practice should not be allowed.

Defense of Premise 3

C1

Is a fetus a life or is it a human life.

I am not going to spend much time on this because it is overall irrelevant to some of the points I will be making. I would like to spend a small bit of time on this though, just to clarify some basic thoughts. I am going to anticipate some of my adversaries possible arguments.

So I am quite sure he will spend a copious amount of time explaining that a fetus is in fact a life. I will not even contest this point; it in fact is a life. That point cannot be argued or disputed. The next logical question one may ask is whether or not it is a human life. This is a far more in-depth question. My adversary will surely spend some of his allotted words on presenting the fact that a fetus is a life at conception. Again this is not the underlying question. This is the basic process of thought in which most people would exhibit.

(A) A fetus is a life and it was conceived by a human, therefore the fetus is a person or a baby.

I think this exhibits some flaws in logic, because the next logical step that my adversary would take is that killing this person or baby after the time it was conceived would be murder.

Murder – The act of unlawfully taking an innocent life without justification. [1]

So how do we define what makes us human. I would almost argue for the fact that the fetus would have to exhibit pain, feelings, emotion, and conscious. It must have some type of senses. If ending a life were considered murder, we could be put on trial for stepping on an insect. An insect is a life, and almost anything we can imagine is in fact living. This is in fact almost impossible to show and prove at what stage it develops these qualities, which is why it is such a controversial issue. This varies from state to state and is also a huge reason that late term abortion is banned. One of many studies shows this.

“Anand argues that because fetuses can respond to stress or other stimuli at 20 weeks, abortion after that point causes them "severe and excruciating pain." The bulk of the scientific literature on the subject, however, finds that the brain connections needed to feel pain are not in place until at least 24 weeks, which is also the earliest possible time a fetus becomes viable outside the womb. Anand's testimony has been used to justify state and federal laws banning abortions after 20 weeks; those efforts have passed in nine states since 2010.”[2]

“Dr. Kanwaljeet "Sunny" Anand, a University of Tennessee professor of pediatrics, anesthesiology, and neurobiology who has promoted the idea that 20 weeks post-conception is the point when a fetus begins to feel pain. None of this evidence follows or aligns with almost any other scientific research done on this subject”[2]

While a fetus may be a life, it does not start to develop characteristics that humans share until around 20-24 weeks. I do not need to spend much more time on this because as I said earlier, it is irrelevant.

C2

Abortion in cases where it could danger a mother’s life

For the sake of argument, let’s pretend my adversary is right. Let us say that a fetus is in fact a living breathing person, and acting on abortion is committing murder. Now we have an entirely different issue. What happens in a situation where the mother could die from the pregnancy? If abortion is banned, the most obvious answer is that she will die. Whether this will or will not occur a majority of time is erroneous, but claiming that abortion should be outlawed all together would give no choice to the mother in this situation if it did actually happen. These are just a few facts on how many pregnancies can be fatal.

“Globally, an estimated 287,000 maternal deaths occurred in 2010”[3]

“Of all pregnancies anywhere, 15 percent will have a potentially fatal complication. In the developing world, having a baby will be the riskiest thing a woman will do. “[3]

Now there are a few ways we can look at this. If this is an early term pregnancy and we know for a fact, that if the pregnancy continued the mother would die. There is a big problem with this and it is cited and acknowledged by multiple people

(A) If the pregnancy continues, the mother will die. If the mother dies, the child will die.
(B) If the pregnancy is ended through abortion, the child will die, but the mother will live.

Now you face a dilemma. Either way the child is going to die, so the only just cause is to save the mother. That is one way an abortion should be justified and not illegal in all circumstances.

Now let us review a situation in which the baby could live if the mother would die.

(A) Having the child will result in the death of the mother, but the child can be saved
(B) Ending the Childs life would save the mother

Now there is a much bigger dilemma. A life is going to end either way, so we have to gauge the value of a life. There is no objective way to judge this. Imgaine if a robber breaks into your house and points a gun at your wife and newborn child. He then gives you the choice that one may live and the other may die. He even allows you time to discuss this with your wife to see if she is willing to die. This is a situation that surpasses common law because of the situation. Much like murder in the case of self defense. While murder is wrong, it is justified within the situation.

This is almost the same situation with abortion, with fatal situations playing the role of the robber. There is no way for anyone outside of that family to judge the value of a life. This is a difficult circumstance to be put in, but with the child having no way to respond in both situations, the only viable way to judge this is let the parents decide. In the case of abortion they have never seen this child, or have not developed the same type of connection in which the husband and wife have. Imagine if you are with a girl for 7 years, and at the age of 25 she encounters this situation. A good amount of people would choose to keep the wife alive or want their wife to stay alive. The main thing is, that they are allowed to have that choice. When my adversary is claiming, that there is no situation in which abortion should be allowed. He is taking his perspective of abortion and what he would do in this situation, and applying it for all situations and circumstances like this. This can and should not be done. In this type of situation, only that family has the right to choose the outcome.

C3

Abortion in cases of rape.

Now if we can condone abortion in the previous situation, and say that we do in fact have a reason to allow abortion and end a “life”, let us go to the next most logical step.

Again imagine a 16 year old girl walking home from school. She is raped and gets pregnant. If we are not allowing her the right to have an abortion, we are essentially screwing up her life or even potentially killing her future. She had no say in what happened, because of someone else’s choice, she has to bear this child.

If we make it illegal, she is forced to bear this child for months. Suffer the pain and agony of going through this pregnancy. Endure the emotional and mental stress of someone else’s indiscretion. It could mess up her grades in school, and she could be held back. Even if she forced her to have the child, some states give the rapist visitation rights! That would be more of an emotional bullet.

Again this was not her choice to go through this pain for months on end, with the possibility of it messing up her future. In regards to this situation, it is her choice to do what she wants. If she wants to bear the child because of moral and ethical reasons that is fine. If she does not want to suffer through the pain and agony of pregnancy at such an early age, we should also give her the option to opt out. This was not her choice or was caused by any action of her own. It is her body, and we are forcing pain on her in which she did accept or welcome.

Some facts on rape related pregnancies that show common they are

“the national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. Among 34 cases of rape-related pregnancy, the majority occurred among adolescents and resulted from assault by a known, often related perpetrator.”[4]

With it happening more often than we think, I think it is only acceptable that we give the woman the right to choose what to do in this situation. It is not our place to issue and objective commandment or law, saying that she must suffer for the mistakes of others. We all are not religious, and hold to such an ideology.

In Closing.

This debate is about one of two choices. First we can make abortion illegal regardless of all circumstances, and not have a viable option when extreme cases do arrive. I am arguing for the fact that we should always have abortion on the table as an option, especially in extreme circumstances.


[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.motherjones.com...
[3] http://www.ncbi...
[4] http://www.rainn.org...
abyteofbrain

Pro

You said: "Let us say that a fetus is in fact a living breathing person, and acting on abortion is committing murder. Now we have an entirely different issue. What happens in a situation where the mother could die from the pregnancy? If abortion is banned, the most obvious answer is that she will die." First of all, fetuses don't breathe air. Secondly, is it right to kill one innocent person to save another innocent person from the risk of death? That would be absurd; to kill any innocent person for any reason, is by definition, murder, punishable by law. Thirdly, pregnancy very rarely causes the risk of death. The death of the mother does not guarantee the death of the baby either. Premature babies can survive outside of the mother with medical attention, and it would be wrong not to try to save them both. So, in this case, if the mother wants to kill the baby, shouldn't we kill her instead? All efforts should be toward saving every innocent person. Just because there's risk of death, to give up on any innocent person is not granted.

I've seen it argued that a baby which causes discomfort/risk for the mother is not innocent. I believe that this idea would best be challenged with an analogy. Suppose that there was a village near a mine field, in which one of the houses was so close, that the mines could damage it and it's occupants. If you were walking through that minefield, unknowing of it's existence, would an occupant of the hut, or a passerby on the street have the right to shoot you to protect the occupants? Innocence is defined as being without crime or offense.

My arguments already covered the arguments you mentioned about rape. Most of those "rape" incidents, probably couldn't be proven. I know of no way to prove rape; even the presence of sperm wouldn't prove it. You'd have to go on accumulations of weak evidence. Rapists having visitation rights is not a problem of abortion. If this is harmful or unwanted, make it illegal for rapists to have visitation rights.

A beating heart is first detectable at 22 days. (1)

So how does the lack of development in a baby make it moral to kill the baby? You haven't even touched on the subject yet.

You haven't yet responded, so I would like to request a response directly. Do you accept the common pro-choice definitions that "human" is the species, and "person" is a human with full legal rights? It is important that we can agree on definitions for this; if you refuse to accept mine, propose yours, and I will accept them.

You made surprisingly fewer arguments than premises. I saw many premises which were irrelevant to the few conclusions.

1: http://www.amazingpregnancy.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Mikal

Con

Contention 1

" Secondly, is it right to kill one innocent person to save another innocent person from the risk of death? That would be absurd; to kill any innocent person for any reason, is by definition, murder, punishable by law. "

The issue my adversary is bringing up that killing a fetus in the hopes to save a mother is illegal. The first thing I am going to address is that it is not illegal. It is considered self defense, they are acting in defense of harm brought upon their body.

Justifiable Homicide - Rightful; warranted or sanctioned by law; that which can be shown to be sustained by law[1]

"The right of self-defense (according to U.S. law) (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for civilians acting on their own behalf to engage in violence for the sake of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including the use of deadly force."[2]

So if we took pros stance and actually considered the fetus a human, we are promised by law the right to terminate it if it could endanger the mothers life. In the case of terminal pregnancies, the mother is in fact suffering and will die from it. Telling her she does not have the right to reasonably defend herself because it does not happen that often is a bold statement to make.

He then says this

"If you were walking through that minefield, unknowing of it's existence, would an occupant of the hut, or a passerby on the street have the right to shoot you to protect the occupants? Innocence is defined as being without crime or offense."

The issue with this is that someone is going to die in the case of a fatal pregnancy. That can not be avoided, and by allowing the fetus to live you are killing the mother. While pro is strictly saying save the baby, the same thing applies in the case of the mother. So how then do you judge the quality of life? At that stage no federal regulation should have a say in the circumstance. It should be decided by the family and only the family.

Contention 2

"My arguments already covered the arguments you mentioned about rape. Most of those "rape" incidents, probably couldn't be proven."

This is just false, see prior round sources for statistics on rape.

Contention 3

" So how does the lack of development in a baby make it moral to kill the baby? You haven't even touched on the subject yet."

I did touch that. The lack of development is a the answer in itself. It does not exhibit human characteristics so at most stages if can be argued the baby is just a life and not a human life. At what stage does someone feel pain, emotion, conscious, etc. As my source from the prior round shows, it normally starts at around 22 weeks or so.


In conclussion.

We can assume there are some situations in which abortion is a viable choice, therefore the practice of abortion should not be banned.




[1] http://thelawdictionary.org...
[2] http://www.princeton.edu... / Most state statues also have this.
abyteofbrain

Pro

I did not say that abortion is illegal, I said that murder is, and if a baby is a person, then abortion is murder, which is illegal. Yes it is defense, but it's defense which involves murder. As I mentioned before the issue is weather or not a fetus is a person; it would be perfectly acceptable to do anything to animal to save a person's life. When you said; "So if we took pros stance and actually considered the fetus a human, we are promised by law the right to terminate it if it could endanger the mothers life" It sounds to me like you are saying that it would be legal, in America to shoot you in my hypothetical scenario. Murder is illegal, and murder is what that would be. Walking through a mine field, unknowing of it's existence, is not breaking the law, and the do-er is innocent.

I'll go over the differences again. First is location, we can rule that one out immediately, because being in a car, another country, or even some other person's body wouldn't make you any less of a person. Second, is physical ability. Does a person without the ability to control it's body lose the right to live? Why would that be any mor reasonable than location? Next is mental ability, which the Nazis considered to be a reason to lose the right to live, but once again, I've seen no good reason that this would make a human a non-person. From a secular perspective, my stance only makes sense if morality is judged as what is good for the people as a whole, which can not be accurately judged. This is why I mention that if you think that murder is wrong, then you should also consider abortion wrong.

There is never a situation in which there is no chance that the mother will survive without an abortion. I've made it as clear as I know how that we should always try to save every innocent life.

Your sources don't prove rape in any incident. Would you demonstrate how rape could be proven?

Is a person's right to live defined by it's ability? As I mentioned in my opening argument, what about an adult who can't do any of these things?

I could say that the lack of development in a baby means that we should worship them and give them human sacrifices, but that doesn't prove a thing. You are doing the equivalent in saying that being undeveloped keeps them from having the rights of a person. I asked why, but the answer I recieved was the old fashioned; "because it is". Everything comes down to this issue: is a human always a person?

It's a little late to mention this, but you need to more fully adress my argument and questions. Perhaps you should give yourself more time to argue. Most of what I'm seeing are pre-written arguments not changed to fit the context.

In conclusion, it is never right to kill one innocent person to save another; both lives should be saved if possible, and to not try to save one of them is as good as murder. We can never tell the future, therefore it is not our right to act upon our judgements of it. If a nurse gives an unconscious man a drug to save his life, but it combined with another drug that was present and undetectable in his body, and he dies from this. Was it the nurse's fault? No, on the contrary, she did what she could, and that's what matters. I'm not telling you to value any innocent human's life over another. I'm telling you that they are equal.

Once again, I thank you for the debate, and I hope that I have given you much food for thought.
Debate Round No. 3
Mikal

Con

Rebuttal 1

"I did not say that abortion is illegal, I said that murder is, and if a baby is a person, then abortion is murder, which is illegal."

This is a logic fail. If by saying murder is illegal, and therefore abortion should illegal then the next thing we must acknowledge is that this statement is irrelevant. The resolution is still not upheld. Pro must present a case as to why abortion should be illegal or not used in any circumstance. Just by saying it is murder is failing to address all of the contentions I have brought forth.

Rebuttal 2

Murder is always illegal

This is the best inference I can draw from cons case here. Literally this makes me want to punch myself in the face. Murder is not always illegal. Ask George Zimmerman about self defense and see how he is doing. He shot a kid in Florida which is the worst of all states to defend yourself in, and GOT AWAY WITH IT. Yes you can kill someone legally and have it be permissible by law. This argument is so faulty it is almost not worth addressing.

The difference between killing someone to save another persons life and killing a fetus to save a mothers life, is that you are sacrificing someone whom does not have emotion, pain, or even a way to respond to anything asked to it for the life of someone who has all the above.

Rebuttal 3

" There is never a situation in which there is no chance that the mother will survive without an abortion "

This is a blatant lie. There are things called ecotpic pregnanices, that can and will lead to the death of the mother if the fetus is not killed [1][2]. These pregnancies can possibly lead to death. "It is a complication of pregnancy in which the embryo implants outside the uterine cavity."

Rebuttal 4

" Your sources don't prove rape in any incident. Would you demonstrate how rape could be proven? "

I am lost as to how to respond to this. Since my sources involve statistics involving rape, one can logically assume rape actually happens. The way this is worded, is like my adversary is making rape out to be a myth and asking me to "show me that rape actually exists". Rape is not like God, it happens all the time and on a daily basis. See prior sources.


Rebuttal 5

" It's a little late to mention this, but you need to more fully adress my argument and questions. Perhaps you should give yourself more time to argue. Most of what I'm seeing are pre-written arguments not changed to fit the context."

You really have not given a viable argument, and all the ones you have given I have properly refuted. You claimed a baby is a person. I addressed this in my first round, which you did not properly refute. You then sort of dropped all my points and said "Killing a baby is murder, therefore it is illegal". I shot this down pretty quick.

Even if we acknowledge the baby is a person, there are situations in which killing it can be justified. Especially including situations in where it is causing the mother harm and could threaten her life. I have shown legal evidence to support both which you have also chosen to ignore. Under the statue of most states and through justifiable homicide, we are given the right to protect our body of harm. It is called self defense. In and only then is murder justified. This explicitly fits into the context of that.

Rebuttal 6

"In conclusion, it is never right to kill one innocent person to save another; both lives should be saved if possible, and to not try to save one of them is as good as murder"

There are situations that aborting a fetus could lead to the harm or cause the death of the mother. By choosing to save the child, you can lose both the Child and the Mother and gain nothing. These cases are few and far between, but we should always have the option on the table. It is not my adversaries right, or my right to deny a family the right to chose whom to save. In situations like that, no legalities should permit saving one or the other. If the mother wishes to die to possibly save the child that is her choice. However if she wishes to abort a fetus inside of her calling pain so that she can live and be with her loved ones, that is also her choice. The government can not deny her the right to chose in that situation.

I know if my Fiance were laying on a table and the only way to save her was to abort a fetus, I would want that option available to me. Would you rather keep someone alive whom you have been with for years, spent your time with, can psychically talk to , and that you have an emotional connection with or would you risk that persons life in order to possibly save a fetus that could possibly become a child if it makes it through the process.

Abortion should also be left open as an option, therefore it should remain legal, and not be made illegal

In closing

Con has came no where near meeting his BOP as noted in R1 which he agreed to take. Every case he has presented, I have refuted and he has not met the resolution that he presented. Therefore we can conclude that abortion should remain legal especially for cases of rape and where it could endanger the mothers life.


This is the end of this debate. My adversary has agreed to type

"no round as agreed upon"

in the last round. I would like to thank him for a great debate



[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.nlm.nih.gov...
abyteofbrain

Pro

This round intentionally left blank, but if I must;
"No round as agreed upon"
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by abyteofbrain 3 years ago
abyteofbrain
From an atheistic perspective, abortion makes sense in some cases, if you don't believe that murder is always wrong.
Posted by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
RFD:

From the outset, Pro seems very concerned with a number of irrelevant issues, especially 1) the innocence of a fetus 2) the status of a fetus as a living thing. Pro's argument about the difficulty of proving that a rape has occured seems to have confused Con (whose response to this I didn't think was very good by the way, his jab at God was unnecessary) and possibly other readers, but I think I understand him to be saying that because it is so hard to prove we shouldn't be relying on that as a basis for justification of abortion. If that is his point though, it still doesn't help establish why it should be illegal in the first place. His example of killing someone accidently walking through a minefield seems to backfire, because the answer that immediately comes to my mind is "absolutely yes"! The benign intentions of the individual are irrelevent. The immenent danger the individual poses to me or my family is all that matters. If killing the poor minefield hiker who inadvertenly threatens to kill me and those I love (a weird example, but ok, let's go with it) is the only way to stop him, then killing him is necessary. I would take this action without joy, but also without hesitation. This is self defense. Pro never came up with a suitable argument to overcome Con's point of self defense.
Posted by abyteofbrain 3 years ago
abyteofbrain
Being illegal only means that it is against the law, it does not mean that it is enforced. You did not properly address some of the things that you said you did. You also mentioned that there is sometimes a 100% chance that something will happen, which, hopefully, you know is not true.
Posted by abyteofbrain 3 years ago
abyteofbrain
ok, you really should use quotations more often.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Just normal debate. Except on the last round, just type no round as agreed upon. You have a round to build your case. A round to reemphasize points, and offer rebuttals, and a last round to close up. On the very last round, just type no round.

Follow that structure in my R!. It lays it out for you. But you can build your case anyway you want
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Just normal debate. Except on the last round, just type no round as agreed upon. You have a round to build your case. A round to reemphasize points, and offer rebuttals, and a last round to close up. On the very last round, just type no round.

Follow that structure in my R!. It lays it out for you. But you can build your case anyway you want
Posted by abyteofbrain 3 years ago
abyteofbrain
I meant rounds, not debates.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
just use this one I guess, It accidentally sent two. The other one will cancel.
Posted by abyteofbrain 3 years ago
abyteofbrain
So use the first and not last?
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Just let me know or hit accept and ill follow up
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Skeptikitten 3 years ago
Skeptikitten
MikalabyteofbrainTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro rather ignored that the crux of this debate is personhood, not whether a fetus is biologically "human". He seemed to think this very important point was irrelevant. He also simply reiterated that abortion is murder and seemed to think that made the argument, without ever establishing that abortion falls under the category of murder- which requires showing personhood. Pro also fails to rebut any of the excellent points made by Con regarding the reality of potentially fatal pregnancies- even going so far as to ludicrously claim they don't exist and that there is always the chance a woman can be saved. This just illustrates Pro did not do his research on the topic. Nevermind his rather offensive claim that since you can't "prove" a girl was raped, rape is irrelevant. Which is basically saying the girls are all inventing that they were raped. Apparently Pro's position is that if women get a fatal or potentially fatal complication they just should go ahead and die?
Vote Placed by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
MikalabyteofbrainTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by yay842 3 years ago
yay842
MikalabyteofbrainTied
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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: because I simply cant vote on long debates
Vote Placed by Beverlee 3 years ago
Beverlee
MikalabyteofbrainTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: "Necessary but not sufficient conditions" questions define this debate. Obviously a fetus is human, made of human tissue, and a necessary condition for being "human." However, it is far from being a "sufficient condition;" a human is not a fetus, even if a fetus is a necessary stage of human development. Likewise, chickens are not eggs and seeds are not trees. Although Con thought this was not relevant - it was very important for my concept of this particular debate.