The Instigator
charles15
Pro (for)
Winning
34 Points
The Contender
Peleus
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Abortion Should be Illegal.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 6 votes the winner is...
charles15
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 22,339 times Debate No: 6915
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (6)

 

charles15

Pro

Thank you to whoever accepts this debate, I appreciate it a lot.

Over 4,000 babies are murdered everyday by surgeons who barely passed medical school. According to, www.cirtl.org, 95% of of the abortions that have been done in the the United States are for birth control reasons (a girl accidentaly got pregnant), the other 1% are unfortunately from incest or rape and the last 3% are because the mother could possibly die. Now, if a mother's life is at risk then that is the only case one should have an abortion.

Since 4000 babies die each day this means that 1.5 million die each year, 1 baby every 20 seconds and since 1973 approximately 50 million babies have been aborted; that is close to 7 times the amount of deaths in WWI. And remember 95% of these abortions were for "birth control reasons."

Now that I have laid down some horrifying statistics let me begin by saying most people on the pro choice side of this debate believe that a baby is not considered a human being until the baby's whole body or head has come out from the mother's womb. This belief played a big role in abortion a few years ago, until it was eventually outlawed under the Bush administration. The procedure would call for a doctor to purposefully turn a baby so that the feet would come out first and not the head. This then would make it easy for a doctor to inject piousness medication into the blood stream of the baby, thus, causing the baby to die, this is also known as partial birth abortion.

Another way that an abortion procedure is done, is by sticking a tube into a mother's womb and then slowly sucking the baby out, piece by piece, into a container on the opposite end of the tube. Brian Kemper, a member of my church and the runner of a pro life organization, told me, that when he was entering into an abortion clinic, to pray and hand out pro life flyers to the doctors and mothers who decided to get an abortion, he saw something that changed his whole view on the issue of abortion. He described the clinic as a small building with an even smaller waiting area. The waiting area was just outside the the door to where the operations were conducted. These doors were to stay closed at all times, for obvious reasons. And as Mr. Kemper continued to pray he saw a doctor open the door which led him to witness a girl with a tube in her stomach and tears of guilt running down her cheeks as bits and pieces of the baby were sucked out through the tube. Abortion is sugar coated in the media, if its even talked about at all. Why? Because no one wants to admit how sick, twisted, perverted and demoralizing abortion really is. There are even doctors whose job it is to put all the pieces in the container back together to make sure every body part of the baby is accounted for.

Another problem in being pro choice is that there is know way in telling when a baby is human or not. Should one really leave it up to a "drop out medical student," to simply turn the baby around in a mother's womb so that the head can come out last, thus, making it possible for a doctor to kill the baby when it is SECONDS away from what pro life supporters call an actual HUMAN BEING. If the baby is only seconds away from life then why would you kill the baby? With todays technology it is very, very rare that partial birth abortion must take place in order to save a mothers life. So, the only other reasons could possibly be because the mother did not want the baby or could not support it financially. These reasons, are by far, out weighed by the vale of life. Besides, there are plenty of well funded organizations able to take the mother's baby and give it proper care.

The debate that I am making, about, how or when do you know when a human becomes a human never got looked in the supreme court. Why? Because there is know answer. In the Roe v. Wade trial Roe was trying to be able to have an abortion for health reasons that "may" occur and unreadiness for parent hood. None of the reasons were life threatening or simply overcome by putting the bay up for adaption. Roe now, even admits to have been wrong in her doing of wining, she wishes that she could take it back but she cant. So, she is doing the next best thing funding and supporting pro life organizations in order to reverse her terrible mistake.

Good Luck, to my opponent.
charles15

Sources:
http://www.cirtl.org...
http://www.tourolaw.edu...
Peleus

Con

Hello Charles15,

Firstly I hope I'm a decent opponent for you. I freely admit I don't have a huge background or education on the abortion issue, but as always I'll put my opinion forward to debate, and often to learn by hearing the other side.

Let me also say that I think abortion is an extremely saddening and disappointing thing. I also believe that no one should ever use it for birth control purposes, with many other contraceptive methods available. I'd also say that while I believe these things, I also do not think that it should be illegal.

Firstly I think we're both going to have to agree that unfortunately there is never going to be a clearly defined point between human and not human. This is a theological debate that can go on forever, simply because there is no answer. I personally believe the foetus has become a human being when it can survive outside the womb of the mother with whatever medical support we can reasonable give. This definition would change for everyone. I could never successfully argue that a microsecond before this point the foetus is not a human, and you could never argue it is.

You rightfully give some distressing figures about the amount abortion is used, and I think we should also do everything we can to lower this figure as much as we can, while still retaining a mothers choice to choose (i.e. education of other options etc).

Now, we commonly see in places where abortion is illegal, the practice does not stop. It either forces women to travel from state to state, or from country to country, to terminate the pregnancy. Furthermore an even bigger problem can arise by illegal abortion clinics. Suddenly instead of having a legal safe environment to abort the pregnancy a woman is forced into a situation where she does not have the backup of the health system. This can obviously lead to massive problems in regards to women's health and mental wellbeing. I would hate to see us go to a situation where a woman is lying in a hotel room dying from internal bleeding because someone masquerading as a doctor tried to make $500 off her guaranteeing her a ‘safe' abortion. Mother's, if they choose to have an abortion regardless, are obviously safer having it with the backup of the medical system rather than forced to go other routes.

I'd also say simply put we cannot enforce our own moral standards across the board onto every person in a country. You mention yourself that you are for abortion in the cases of the mother's health being in danger.

If the argument is that abortion is murder clear and simple, then how can you justify killing a "person" in response to another's life in danger? What makes the mother's life more important than that of the child? What about the cases of rape, do you think a woman should be forced to bring a child into the world that was the product of such a terrible and traumatic experience? As soon as you say yes to any of these situations, then you're simply applying your moral standards to the situation, and deeming what is acceptable and what isn't (i.e. health of the mother). Who are we to say that our moral standards are the ones that should be legally imposed onto others, while theirs are ignored?
As a result I think that abortion should be legal, simply because we have no right to enforce our moral standards on someone else.

I must also comment on your description of the abortion process. While I understand that you do not agree with it, please don't insult the medical professionals that while aren't doing something you agree with, have their own moral beliefs and in their opinion are doing what they believe in. No need to label them all with slanderous names such as "drop out medical student". Also to be fair I would hate to see the procedure you described, but then again I'd be pretty squeamish about seeing open heart surgery also.

In summary my counter argument bases around two main points (at this stage). Firstly I believe that making abortion illegal will not stop the practice of abortion, simply moving it underground where women are placed at greater risks because they do not have the medical system in place to support them out of fear of prosecution. Secondly I don't think we have the right to legally impose our moral standards onto others in an area which is a largely unclear theological debate. I understand we enforce society's moral standards in laws all the time; however I think we can agree that murdering a 34 year old father of two is clearer cut than if we abort a foetus 1 day after sperm fertilises an egg.

As a result, although I agree abortion is a disappointing and disheartening part of life and society, I don't think the practice should be made illegal.
Debate Round No. 1
charles15

Pro

Thanks a lot for accepting my debate Peleus, after reading your view on the issue I can understand where you are coming from. You also do seem like someone who even though is pro choice could be persuaded, thanks to your open mindedness.

Obviously form what you have written above, you believe that even if "abortion is illegal, the practice does not stop."
Well, after looking at your profile I can see that both you and I are in favor of keeping drugs illegal. Let me explain where this is going, one of the reasons you believe that abortion should not be made illegal is because it will just continue to be practiced underground, and actually, I agree with that statement 50%. But, then what is the point of voting down drugs if each day the practice of them do not stop either even though they are illegal? Just because abortion probably will not stop the day it is made illegal, does not give you a justifiable reason to say that Americans should never vote it down. There is always going to be crime no matter what the laws are, thats why jails are necessary. But, it doesn't mean we should not make the things that are wrong illegal. And overtime more and more doctors will be thrown in jail thus causing the amount of abortions drop dramatically.

You said: "If the argument is that abortion is murder clear and simple, then how can you justify killing a "person" in response to another's life in danger? What makes the mother's life more important than that of the child?"

This is a very good question and good thinking on my opponent's part. MOST of the time that a baby is going to kill the mother the baby will not survive either so this would result in the baby dyeing in order that the mother may live. But, that only answers part of the question given to me by my opponent. The decision is ultimately left up to the parents. Its not a question of whether the mothers life is more important then the babies, for, the mother could decide that she wants to die for her child instead so that he or she may live. This can not be thought of as a situation of murder, because the mother was in an act of self-defense against her own child (as weird as that sounds its true), this situation is a painful decision. I also know that these situations become more and more rare as time goes on and now days practically unheard of. Soon this will not be an issue. One could say "but what if the baby doesn't want to die, what gives the parents the right to decide the babies fate" Well, in this situation we have to use common sense. Given the situation where the parents must pick either the mother or the baby to die in order to keep both from dying then the decision most be given to the parents. Because, a baby in the womb can not speak for itself (this is one of the reasons abortion is so terrible), and since it is impossible for the baby to even know what it wants at this point in time, should we then let both the baby and the mother die because of the child's inability to speak in its defense? Or should the parents use common sense and pick which one will remain living.

You Said: "What about the cases of rape, do you think a woman should be forced to bring a child into the world that was the product of such a terrible and traumatic experience?"

It is a terrible crime, rape, and any woman who was forced by another man to be sexually abused has my sympathy. But first of all, this still does not justify abortion, like I said in my opening statement, there a number of organizations that I know of on a personal level that will give mothers what ever they need to put their babies up for adoption. Not only are there adoptions available, but mothers can find other parents that are looking to become parents, but cant, because of physical problems they may have. This would involve interviews, so that the mother knows who she is giving her child to. Secondly, rape does not make abortion justifiable, because its not the babies fault that the mother was sexually abused. The baby has a right to live, in or out of the womb and with all the help a mother can get from pro life organizations there is know justifiable reasons or excuses for an abortion.

You Said: "As a result I think that abortion should be legal, simply because we have no right to enforce our moral standards on someone else."

Pro life supporters are not forcing moral standards on someone else they are just trying to stop 4000 babies from dying each week. May I also remind you that abortion has been legal for not even 40 years this is a short period of time compared to all of America's history. So when it comes down to it, its not pro life believers that are "enforcing our moral standards on pro choice believers," but vice versa. Also why should pro life believers stand back and watch everyday as 4000 babies are murdered, this is America, where we the people have every right to try and enforce laws that we want made.

You have seemed to forgotten that 95% of abortions are for birth control reasons, even you say your self that, "I think abortion is an extremely saddening and disappointing thing. I also believe that no one should ever use it for birth control purposes, with many other contraceptive methods available." From that quote it is obvious that you disagree with birth control abortion, but then why would you insist on keeping abortion legal even if 95% of abortions are because of BIRTH CONTROL REASONS? You are willing to sacrifice those 95% of babies just because you think that pro life supporters shouldn't "enforce our standards onto others," even though it is perfectly legal to do so in America?

Thanks again for accepting my challenge I look forward to your next argument, if I sounded to pushy in my argument its not anything personal you actually asked some challenging questions. I hope I answered them well.
Think about those 95%.

charles15
Peleus

Con

Thank you for your response Charles, also let's also re-iterate as you have, that we're talking about fairly personal beliefs, so we'll both have to realise we're debating our point of view, not trying to turn it into a person attack at all.

I'll also paraphrase my opponent's arguments to respond instead of quoting massive chunks.

"Why should we use the excuse "it won't stop if we make it illegal" valid for abortion but support the same approach for drugs".

It's a good question. I think this ties in towards my second main argument, but I'll expand on that later. I'd say there are key differences between drugs and abortion which changes my stance on each. Although you could certain argue the moral fabric of society is weakened from abortion I think we can both agree that drug's on the whole because a lot more practical harm to our society than abortion does. Some examples of this would easily be given by crime rates and violent attacks by those on drugs, or looking for money to buy them. This clearly does not stem from having abortion legalised. A second difference is based around the cost to our health system. Obviously abortion does take up some medical resources, but I think common sense also says that drug addiction is a much longer term problem, which can take up huge amount of medical resources. I'd also say that this analogy is perhaps better compared to say safe drug injection rooms. I'm not sure if these have been trailed / you have them in America, but the basic principle is that people can inject illegal drugs in a safe environment without persecution. It's along the lines of "I don't agree with what you are doing, but if you are going to do it, do it in a safe clean protected environment". I feel that making abortion illegal will simply turn women again to unsafe alternatives.

It's also worth mentioning that unlike drug's which is an ongoing issue, abortion (within reason) is a "one off" event. What I mean by this is that for many women being illegal or not in their location will most likely not stop their choice of if they wish to have an abortion or not. As a result many will engage in "medical tourism" and simply have an abortion take place in a country where it is legal, not lowering the abortion rate, simply shifting it somewhere else. Only those without financial means (lower social-economic background) will then most likely turn to unsafe alternatives. This also makes one of the unfortunately vulnerable classes of people more susceptible to even more health and medical risks then they already are.

Due to character limit's, I'll move onto my other main point, based around the belief we should not and cannot impose our moral beliefs on others.

"Pro life supporters are not forcing moral standards on someone else they are just trying to stop 4000 babies from dying each week."

Firstly we're going to have to come to the agreement that the majority of people who chose to have an abortion do not think of it this way. They believe for their own reasons that life does not start at the time they have their abortion, so they are ok with it morally and ethically. I think this can be fairly confirmed with their carrying out the abortion.

"So when it comes down to it, its not pro life believers that are "enforcing our moral standards on pro choice believers," but vice versa. Also why should pro life believers stand back and watch everyday as 4000 babies are murdered, this is America, where we the people have every right to try and enforce laws that we want made."

To begin with you absolutely have the right to try and get laws enacted, which is why public debate is such a good thing, that's the beauty of freedom of speech (I'll get to this freedom).

This is a key difference in our philosophies which I think is worth highlighting and explaining. The first premise of my logic is that different people have different opinions of where life begins. There is no right answer to this, simply differing opinions, neither is correct simply because it's the belief of the holder. Just the same way that no religion is right, simply because it's the belief of the holder. Because there are different opinions we have a situation where to some individuals abortion is ok – it's simply aborting a foetus before it turns into a human, and to other's abortion is unacceptable – a foetus is always a human, and at any stage it's murder. Can we agree on this statement?

If we can agree on that statement, I think it's the lesser of evils to legalize abortion. At an individual level it leads to the following situation. This is also why I don't accept your premise of pro-choice people enforcing their opinion on pro-life people.

Abortion - Legal
People who believe it's morally acceptable have the choice to end the pregnancy if they wish
People who believe it's not morally acceptable have the choice to carry the pregnancy through.

Abortion - Illegal
People who believe it's morally acceptable are legally restricted and can't exercise their choice
People who believe it's not morally acceptable have the choice to carry the pregnancy through.

As you can see, only through abortion being illegal can someone's choice about what is largely a philosophical debate be restricted. If I found Christianity morally offensive do you think that if I had enough support, even the support of 51% of the nation (the majority) I should be allowed to outlaw it? Or do you think the choice of belief should be protected?

"From that quote it is obvious that you disagree with birth control abortion, but then why would you insist on keeping abortion legal even if 95% of abortions are because of BIRTH CONTROL REASONS? You are willing to sacrifice those 95% of babies just because you think that pro life supporters shouldn't "enforce our standards onto others," even though it is perfectly legal to do so in America?"

The short but perhaps surprising answer is yes. I think its best summed up in a quote from Evelyn Beatrice Hall (commonly attributed to Voltaire).

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

In America (where I don't live), it's commonly said that you believe in the right to freedom, and cherish that freedom more than anything. It's also for that reason I believe in someone's choice to choose for themselves what they believe to be more important than what I personally view on the subject.

As a result I think that abortion should be legal, and I never want to convince you that abortion is right - That's your personal view to hold, however hopefully I can convince you that perhaps others have the right to act on their own beliefs.
Debate Round No. 2
charles15

Pro

Sorry it took me so long to respond i have been pretty busy lately. It really has been a lot of fun debating you so far Peleus.

"I feel that making abortion illegal will simply turn women again to unsafe alternatives."

One thing that needs to be understood, is this, that most if not all of doctors that commit the abortions are at the "bottom of the food chain" if you will. These doctors usually did poorly in medical school, plus, to become an abortion doctor it takes the least amount of qualifications/requirements to do so, compared to any other kind of doctor. These are some of the reasons why, earlier, in my debate I refereed to the abortion doctors as "drop outs." These are also statements of not only my opinion, but actual facts. Many times as well, abortion doctors are sued for a various amount of problems that went wrong during the procedure. Also, not only can the doctors be "bad doctors," but the physicillaties can be dirty along with the tools used in the procees of an abortion, thus, causing infection to the mother. Peleus, you also talk about drugs, and how they can have a long term effect on the human, such as increase in violence, which in turn would raise the crime rate. The drugs influence people to do violent things obviously because of the drug's power to influence a person's psychological state of mind. So here's where I'm going with this, there have been many cases of women's emotions becoming unstable do to the guilt caused by aborting their own baby. In conclusion to this paragraph, abortion is already a dangerous and risky operation I think that you may have the impression that it is a safe thing. Abortion is already as dangerous as it would be "underground" this is why we must out law it now before it dramatically effects the lives of more women each day.

You talk about how abortion, if made illegal, will only open up the door for a woman to go to another country and have the abortion conducted there. You also say, " Only those without financial means (lower social-economic background) will then most likely turn to unsafe alternatives. This also makes one of the unfortunately vulnerable classes of people more susceptible to even more health and medical risks then they already are."

Here are a couple things that are wrong with this theory, first of all, If abortion is made illegal in the USA and not in Europe then the amount of abortions would drop dramatically. Why? Because parents or other woman, will not be willing to pay a 3,500$ trip to europe not including the cost and of the abortion plus many problems that could possibly occur with one's insurance company policies. So, one could defiantly say that not only the low class but the middle class would be unwilling to got to another country for an abortion. Also , this will lead to unmarried couples or couples without enough money to support a child, this will force couples to have safe sex thus reducing the women through out America to even need an abortion in the first place.

"different people have different opinions of where life begins. There is no right answer to this, simply differing opinions,"

Let me revise this statement, if life began by the determination of a certain person, then things could get bad. for instance Barrak Obama voted for an abortion bill that allowed the baby to be murderd hours after it was born if it was intended to be aborted anyways. Now, apparently Barrak Obama (our nations president) did not think life began even though the baby was outside the womb of the mother supporting itself- heart beating and brain functioning, I mean how much more alive does a baby need to get before it is considered human. This is the price babies could pay if the mothers opinion was to decide the babies fate. I am also sure if our nation's president believes in this then there are plenty more that do as well. This is why if there is no right answer to when a baby becomes a human that decision making could become more and more sick and demoralizing as time goes on. For instance maybe the time where you could kill a baby goes from hours to days just because the mother thought "well, the baby was supposed to be aborted anyways so there fore it does not have a right to live until I change my mind." Do you see why there must be a standard to this issue and easily the rules could bend and bend and bend. The only logical answer to this issue is that no one should have an abortion in the first place. Life begins when the cells of the baby begin to form into a man. Because is that not what babies continue to do anyways, after coming out of the womb. Here is an example, if a baby is less human than when his/her cells start to divide than 6 months later, then WHY could you not say a 5 year old is less human than a 10 year. I believe that we should not define a hun=man by how developed he/she is but I think people should consider a human a human from the very moment the sperm fertilizes egg all other theories are contradictory and irrelevant.

Looking Forward to your response
charles15
Peleus

Con

I too thank my opponent for the debate. I'm glad he could respond to the final round because it would have been a shame to leave the debate as it was.

I'll run through a rebuttal of my opponents points, than I'll also point out answers my opponent has clearly failed to give. This will clearly show why abortion should not be illegal. I will also in some cases paraphrase to avoid quoting large chunks of text.

1. My opponent claims that most if not all doctors are at the "bottom of the food chain" meaning they are under qualified / almost the same risk as "unsafe" abortions. He also states that abortion is already as dangerous as it would be if it was "underground", implying that abortion takes place in locations with drop out med students using dirty instruments in unsanitary conditions.

I'm afraid that the picture you paint is exactly what it would be like if abortion was made illegal, not how the practice is done currently. You say this isn't a statement of your opinion, but actual facts. You then fail to provide those facts. Let me tell you what the real statistics are. Currently only 0.5% of abortion procedures result in a serious complication which requires further surgery or hospitalisation. Death only occurs in 0.0006% of legal abortion cases. In fact child birth, which you wish to make mandatory to go through is 10 times more likely to cause death. At a stark contrast death during an illegal abortion is the leading cause of maternity death in countries where abortion is illegal. [1] Clearly the facts do not support your view that abortion is either unsafe currently or practised in unsafe, unsanitary conditions performed by unqualifiedly doctors. About the only thing you accurately describe is the way abortion would become if it was made illegal.

"Peleus, you also talk about drugs, and how they can have a long term effect on the human, such as increase in violence, which in turn would raise the crime rate."

An important clarification here is that I didn't say I was against drugs because of how it effected the human. I said because of how it effected society. I don't think my opponent could realistically start claiming that abortion is causing the same amount of crime and poverty associated with drugs. Yes there may be examples of women going into a poor psychological state of mind after an abortion, but unfortunately this could still occur after any stage of a pregnancy. There are plenty of cases of postnatal depression occurring as well, that doesn't mean we should outlaw childbirth. There is also no proof that this same woman wouldn't have tried to have an illegal abortion, simply having poor mental and physical health after the procedure.

"Also , this will lead to unmarried couples or couples without enough money to support a child, this will force couples to have safe sex thus reducing the women through out America to even need an abortion in the first place."

What makes you think that someone who didn't have the responsibility of having safe sex the first time, will have it after abortion is made illegal? Why will this person simply not try and have an illegal abortion?

My opponent then goes on to state that because abortion could get to the point that abortion could turn into something where a baby is alive for days before its then aborted, and therefore it should be banned. Quite frankly I think this is a pretty silly argument. It may be used to try and restrict the level of abortion allowed, but not necessarily making the entire practice illegal. It's unfair to take something legal and take it to the extreme point to try and make it illegal. That's like me saying that since a person could own a pistol nothing is stopping the legislation being bent and bent until it gets to the point where civilians can own nuclear weapons, therefore we should ban all guns. We simply have to examine each choice as it comes along. Again the conceptual question of where life beings is a philosophical one that has no correct answer. What makes the foetus a human being? Simply because it has the DNA of a human? My dandruff has my DNA but that doesn't make it human. Because it can develop into something? An egg isn't a chicken, and an acorn isn't an oak tree. It's up to the mother to decide this philosophical answer.

My opponent has tried to characterise abortion as an unsafe dirty practice performed by the dregs of medical society, unfortunately the facts don't support this. Abortion is a relatively safe procedure, even safer than child birth.

In return my opponent has failed to address the crippling effect making abortion illegal would have on the pregnant women in society. This would turn abortion from something that causes death in every 0.0006% of cases into the leading cause of maternal death in the nation. We have seen this in other locations where abortion has been outlawed.

My opponent has only offered his moral beliefs as to why abortion should be made illegal.

In return I've posed the question that he has been unable to answer. Why in the area of a philosophical debate is the government better suited to answer the question than the individual?

You are more than welcome to always hold your own moral beliefs, but I firmly believe they shouldn't be legislated into law to restrict the freedom's of others. The only way an individuals choice to answer this conceptual question is restricted is if abortion is made illegal. Otherwise those who don't believe in abortion can carry through their term and those who believe that abortion is ok can exercise their right as well. The moral beliefs of someone should not be forced onto another in this unclear area.

I have clearly refuted all of my opponents points, while providing some that he has been unable to sufficiently answer.

As a result I urge you all to vote con on this resolution.

I thank my opponent for this debate.

[1] - http://www.prochoice.org... (Using the below sources)
[1] - The World Health Report 2005 - Make every mother and child count. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2005.
[1] - Tietze C, Henshaw SK. Induced abortion: A worldwide review, 1986. Third edition. New York: Guttmacher Institute, 1996.
[1] - Henshaw SK. Unintended pregnancy and abortion: A public health perspective. In Paul M, Lichtenberg ES, Borgatta L, Grimes DA, Stubblefield PG. A Clinician's Guide to Medical and Surgical Abortion. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1999, pp. 11-22.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Peleus 7 years ago
Peleus
If anyone could comment about why they voted the way they did it would be appreciated.
Posted by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
me too. pro or con skeptic?
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
I'll debate this.
Posted by Samdeman90 7 years ago
Samdeman90
Well, that is an eye-opening first post! I wish I could debate you here, but I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to give it my all as you are 100% percent right!

Btw, I am very much inspired by the whole Stand True Christ-Centered Pro-Life thing that Brian Kemper does. Tell him to keep up the good work!
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
charles15PeleusTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by TFranklin62 7 years ago
TFranklin62
charles15PeleusTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by charles15 7 years ago
charles15
charles15PeleusTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by sorc 7 years ago
sorc
charles15PeleusTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by ashbest 7 years ago
ashbest
charles15PeleusTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:60 
Vote Placed by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
charles15PeleusTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70