The Instigator
rugbypro5
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Ryuuikari
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Abortion is Wrong

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 3 votes the winner is...
Ryuuikari
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/26/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,817 times Debate No: 42967
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (46)
Votes (3)

 

rugbypro5

Pro

Hello and Merry Christmas to all! Welcome to this debate on the highly controversial topic: abortion. I will be taking the stance that it is wrong, con will be arguing there are good for abortion.

I believe there is NO good reason except for when the mother's life is in danger, other than that, there can't be a logical reason.

Good luck, and let's have a solid debate.
Ryuuikari

Con

I'll accept your debate since I'm a fan of controversy.

So, as Con, I believe there is are good reasons for abortion, other than when the mother's life is in danger.

I'll let you make your points first then I will make my rebuttals (and any other points). Let's get this debating cracking.
Debate Round No. 1
rugbypro5

Pro

To start off, I want to prove that the unborn is 1) Human. This is an important thing to know when dealing with abortion. Pro-life or pro-choice, there should be no question whether the unborn is human or not.

If the unborn isn't human, we have every right to end its life, just like we do to cows and pigs. However, from the just simple science, we see that the fetus, from the very moment of conception is a human being. We can prove this because at the moment the sperm enters the egg, the new baby has all 46 chromosomes needed to put it into the class of homosapien sapien (human). Secondly, it has its very own unique set of DNA. Please note that this DNA is totally different from its mother; therefore, the fetus is not the mother's body. Please don't get me wrong, I am all for womens' rights to choose. I believe they should be able to choose what college they go to, who they marry, what car they can buy, and where they can go. But when people say "Women have the right to choose," you must ask the question, "Choose what?" I think no one, man or woman, should be able to choose life or death for a child.

Now there are most likely questions to what I just said: "Is the fetus even alive? If not, then she's not killing anything." Or the question, "Is it a child yet? It hasn't even been born." I wish to address these before moving on.

According to Oxfords Dictionary, life is defined as: "The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." I believe the fetus inside the womb is capable of all such conditions and is therefore alive. First, the fetus is growing, from day one, there isn't much to discuss there. Second, reproduction. No, the fetus is not capable, at it's present stage, to reproduce. But that is simply a function not yet developed. If the baby's worth or value is diminished because of its level of development, then a 6 year old girl would be less valuable than a 14 year old girl. This is because the 14 year old is more developed than the 6 year old. So to claim that because the fetus is not yet fully developed, then it is less valuable and therefore able to be killed, would be saying you have good justification for the murder of a 6 year old. Functional activity is another requirement that falls under the category of "Level of Development." The ability to function is an ability not yet developed in the fetus. But if you claim you can kill it because it's not functioning, you make the same claim to the people that have been is some accident and has been put into a coma. They too do not function and often show no brain activity. But to claim that you can just kill anyone put into a coma is ludicrous. Sadly, if you claim the fetus isn't alive due to its lack of brain activity, you must stay true to this idea and back the murder of every person in a coma. Lastly, the fetus is continually changing and it will die, hopefully around 80 years later, but it will die nonetheless. So all of this in mind, we can reasonably and logically conclude the fetus is alive.

So with the above paragraphs, we now see that the fetus is a living human.

Now we can take a look at the cases that people will claim are good reasons for killing this human.

The first one is in the case of rape and incest. I believe there is someone who should be killed in the aftermath of a rape. I really do. But its not the mother, and its not the child created during the heinous act. The man, if ever caught, I believe should be immediately sentenced to death. No jail time, no parole, death. I think that would first give the man what he deserves, it would second reduce the number of rapes committed. If rapists knew they were risking their life by raping an innocent woman or child, they would start weighing the risk vs. reward differently. But to the main point, the child created was not the one committing the crime. People say that the child will be a constant reminder of what happened to the woman. This is truly regrettable, it really is. But to kill the child will only be adding shame and guilt on the woman, not alleviating it. To be raped, then commit murder right after it, would take such an incredible toll on a woman's heart and mind.

Pretend with me that I have a 2 year old with me. He was conceived in rape. I know of no reason why we could pull a trigger and end his life, even if he reminded the mom of the rape every time she saw him. Now you might say that the 2 year old and the fetus are completely different, but if you take a look at my first few paragraphs, you'll see this shouldn't matter. The fetus is simply not as developed as the 2 year old, but saying you can kill based on level of development is not logically sound. So I don't believe abortion should be allowed in the case of rape and incest.

I also hear people say, "What if the parents already have 4 kids and they can't afford another one?" My response to this is very simple and very logical. Those parents should first kill their oldest child. Bear with me for a moment. If they were going to kill a child due to money, then the most logical thing would be to kill the oldest child. The oldest child is the most costly one to feed, to clothe, to send to school, while the child inside of her would be much cheaper to raise. So if the reason was money, the parents should logically kill the oldest child. But we don't do that. We don't do that because we recognize the oldest child as alive and human and valuable. Sadly, our mindsets don't reflect this onto the children in the womb. But as I showed in my first few paragraphs, they are just as alive and human and valuable as you and me, therefore they should be treated this way. So I don't think the financial situation is sufficient justification either.

Next I hear people say, "The baby is still dependent on the mother, so the mother should be able to decide what to do with it." This may sound reasonable at first but it falls by the wayside when its looked at deeper. If we fluctuate the baby's worth and value base on its degree of dependency, then our value changes with our degree of dependency as well. So when we are born and even to when we are 2 or 3 years old, you could argue that we're completely dependent on our parents to feed and clothe us and keep us alive. But even at this stage, we don't use their dependency as reason to kill them, that's again because we have value and worth despite our degree of dependency. So this isn't good reasoning either to kill the unborn.

Another common thing I hear is that because the baby isn't born yet, it isn't alive. This argument doesn't hold any water because you'll see that they say the value of the baby is contingent on the environment of the baby. Were you a different person when you walked into your work or school or house? Did your value change when you moved from one side of the bed to the other? Well you moving from one place to another is just as trivial as the 8-inch journey the baby takes down the birth canal to be called "born." There is nothing special about that journey that all of a sudden deems it a human with worth and a right to life. If you did say that, you would be subjecting yourself to a change in value or personhood every time you changed your environment or location. Again, the value of the child is not contingent on its environment.

I now leave it up to you con, to propose a new argument for why the unborn is either: not human, not alive, or not worthy of life. Because from everything I've seen, a fetus is just as alive and human as you and I, and therefore, if we are to be able to call ourselves decent, we should fight for their right to life.

Sources:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Ryuuikari

Con

I will first state my points then refute Pro's points in the next round. Other points will be covered in my rebuttal.

The greatest thing that separates a foetus from almost everything human-related in this argument is that they don't possess consciousness and thus do not possess the sentience or sapience that a baby possesses. Foetuses cannot think, feel or perceive and are not aware of anything. Up until a certain amount of weeks, foetuses are just a bunch of undifferentiated cells. If anything adverse happened to it in this time, it wouldn't endure any suffering or any pain. At all. In that respect, removing a group of cells from a woman's body can barely be called "murder".

Second, to say that a woman should not be allowed to have an abortion for any reason whatsoever is a clear restriction of her free will. She shouldn't feel pressured by anyone else in what decision she makes. The foetus is inside her body and she should have final say on what happens to it. Whether a person's decisions or actions result in a positive or negative consequences should not subtract from the fact that, like opinions, every person is entitled to make their own decisions and actions. This is especially true in the case of abortion, where a wrong or forced decision could be disastrous to the woman (and potentially the child, if kept). If the choice to abort does not clash with her morals then she should be well within her rights to go through with it. After all, morality is subjective and differs from person to person.

Finally abortion should be allowed if it prevents the child that would be born from experiencing unnecessary suffering that would only lead to an early unpreventable death. With the level of medical and biological understanding as well as our level of technology, doctors now have the capabilities to determine congenital disorders that a foetus may possess. With this knowledge you can mercifully abort the foetus, before it is born and forced to suffer before dying. Why let a child fruitlessly endure reality, where all it felt was pain, if it is only going to die moments later?
Debate Round No. 2
rugbypro5

Pro

Ok, so I read a couple comments about my argument being to "emotional" rather than "intellectual." That's because this is an emotional/moral debate rather than purely intellectual. Just because there is a lack of numbers and statistics in the debate doesn't mean it's not credible anymore, it only means that it doesn't require those things. The question of abortion is whether it's right or wrong, that's a moral issue. Use your intellect to test whether the parallels and analogies are accurate or not. Use your logic to decide whether my stance makes sense. From my point of view, my debate is very intellectually and morally sound, that's why I'm pro-life. There's very strong scientific and philosophical arguments for the pro-life stance that I have yet to hear any pro-choice stance stand up to. If there wasn't, I'd be pro-choice right now.

Well moving on, Con, when you say, "The greatest thing that separates a foetus from almost everything human-related in this argument is that they don't possess consciousness and thus do not possess the sentience or sapience that a baby possesses," you are giving the baby worth based on its level of development. A fetus gains the ability to be conscious over time just like a 6 year old girl needs time to develop the ability to reproduce. If I had a 6 year old girl and a 14 year old girl, one would be able to reproduce and one wouldn't, but their value is still the same. Likewise, you can have a fetus and a toddler, one is conscious one is not, but their value should be the same, despite their level of development.

You then go on to explain that if it can't feel pain or suffering, then we have the right to end the life inside the womb. What happens then when you realize that people in comas are incapable of feeling pain or suffering? Even in regular sleep, you could take a gun to the head of someone and pull the trigger and they'll have felt no pain, fear, suffering, nothing; but was it wrong to do?

Next, when you say, "removing a group of cells from a woman's body can barely be called "murder"," is misrepresenting what exactly is inside the mother. They are not just, "a group of cells," if they were, my argument would be saying you commit mass murder when you scratch dead skin cells off your hand. But they aren't just bodily cells; they altogether from the moment of conception are distinct whole human beings- immature, not fully developed- but whole human beings. Science has backed this up in almost every embryological textbook there is, even professors who take the pro-choice stance do so for other reasons, not because they think the fetus isn't a whole human being.

I am an avid supporter of womens' rights. They should be allowed to choose their dental plan, health care, who they marry, what job they have, their bank etc. But you can't answer the question, "Can a woman choose?" until you first answer the question, "Choose to do what?" We restrict peoples' rights to choose all the time. We restrict peoples' rights to rob banks, beat their wives and children, drive drunk, and sell drugs. Why though? We do it because the choice is not only "wrong", but it can hurt them and endanger the lives of others. You see there is a definite right and wrong. Morals cannot be subjective. We can have a debate on it later (I really would love to), but I believe we all know that murdering an innocent child is wrong. So you are absolutely right, pro-lifers ARE restricting the woman's right to choose. We do it because we don't believe anyone, man or woman, should have the right to murder. You see, abortion is not an opinion like your opinion on you favorite kind of ice cream: It is another's life, and it is a fact that it is human. It doesn't matter if it's still inside the woman, that is only a different environment than what you and I are in. There is nothing special about the 8 inch journey down the birth canal that all of a sudden makes it a real person and gives it rights and value. If that were the case, you moving from your kitchen to your bedroom could completely change who you are and how valuable you are as a person.

And lastly, killing a fetus because it may be forced to endure suffering when it's born is a poor excuse. If I had a 2 year old and we were told, "When he is 5, he's going to be roughed up pretty good. His dad is going to become an alcoholic and beat his kid mercilessly. Shoot him now." Should we listen? I hope you'd say, "No, we should take every measure to ensure he is safely removed from that abusive parent and put into the care a different one." That's a logical choice, and it's no different inside the womb. We should take every precaution to make sure the child and the mother both come out of the delivery room healthy.

So you guys reading this debate, sorry for the lack of sources and textbook citing, but this is much more of a moral and logical debate and his arguments are not needing scientific proof to refute them. If I were to try and counter every argument I've heard for abortion, I'd take up a lot more than 10,000 characters... And I don't want to make you guys read for that long. I've always considered mercy to be a virtue.

Sources:
http://cafarufrj.files.wordpress.com...
Ryuuikari

Con

"We can prove this because at the moment the sperm enters the egg, the new baby has all 46 chromosomes needed to put it into the class of homosapien sapien (human)."
Your argument on why the foetus is be considered human from the off is flawed. Just because it has 46 chromosomes, doesn't mean it should be automatically put it into the Homo sapien species. Why? Because chromosomes are just the way that DNA is organised; they don't tell the DNA content. For example Reeve's Muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi) and the Sable Antelope (Hippotragus niger) also have 46 chromosomes. Are these creatures also Homo sapien now?
"Secondly, it has its very own unique set of DNA. Please note that this DNA is totally different from its mother; therefore, the fetus is not the mother's body."
As for your second point, you're merely stating the obvious. I mean unless a human reproduced asexually, of course the foetus will have it's own set of DNA (which I will state is not "totally" different from the mother since they share genetic material). Also while it isn't genetically identical to the woman it is most definitely a part of her body, at the very least connected to her body. Therefore the foetus is (indirectly) a part of the woman. The woman has total freedom and control with what to do to her body and can remove whatever part she likes, in this case being the foetus.

"I believe there is someone who should be killed in the aftermath of a rape. I really do. But its not the mother, and its not the child created during the heinous act. The man, if ever caught, I believe should be immediately sentenced to death. No jail time, no parole, death"
Your point on what to do with rapists is hypocritical to your abortion argument that killing a life is wrong. It's okay to kill one 'living' being for one thing, but not okay to kill another for something else? So your saying I can justifiably murder when I feel someone has done something heinously unjust?
"But to the main point, the child created was not the one committing the crime. People say that the child will be a constant reminder of what happened to the woman. This is truly regrettable, it really is. But to kill the child will only be adding shame and guilt on the woman, not alleviating it."
While the created foetus may not have committed anything, the woman did not ask to be raped. She did not expect to suddenly become pregnant either. She may not want a child yet. She may have wanted a child her partner instead. Why should the woman be inclined to keep it? Because society's ethics tells her it's wrong not to? Why would aborting a foetus bring shame and guilt to a woman who did not willingly want to become pregnant? Basically the final decision should be up to the woman and the woman alone. She'll be carrying the baby for nine months and may be the one caring for it for 18+ years. She shouldn't feel pressured by society or ethics to make a decision that may not be right for her.
As for your example involving the 2 year old child, the only similarity the child and the foetus would have is that they both contain human DNA. One is a sapient, breathing, choice-making being and the other is a bunch of undifferentiated cells.

"Those parents should first kill their oldest child."
Again you are being hypocritical. It's okay to kill the oldest child just to make way for a new one? Do you realise how that would affect the child's younger siblings? The negative impact it would have, especially when they find out that their older sibling died simply because there wasn't enough money to provide for the new child. This foetus cannot even think yet, but you'd rather kill off the being that can. To commit murder of one's child would take such an incredible toll on, not only the woman's, but the family's hearts and minds.

"So when we are born and even to when we are 2 or 3 years old, you could argue that we're completely dependent on our parents to feed and clothe us and keep us alive."
A toddler has a drastically larger chance of growing up if it has a parent, or parental figure, there to care for it, but it doesn't explicitly need a parent to survive (granted survival chances are low). A foetus cannot survive without it's mother because it's just a bunch of cells. Survival chances are zero. If the mother does not want it, she should not have to keep it.

To add I stated "unnecessary suffering that would only lead to an early unpreventable death". Maybe I wasn't clear enough but what that meant was that the baby would unavoidably die shortly after being born (anything up to a few years old) and would suffer up until that point. So it would be more 'merciful' to remove it early on than to let it suffer and end up dying anyway.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://zyxo.wordpress.com...
Debate Round No. 3
rugbypro5

Pro

"The woman has total freedom and control with what to do to her body and can remove whatever part she likes"
How many fingers does a woman have? 10 is usually the correct answer, though I did meet a lady with 11 one time. But for the most part, there are 10 fingers for each woman and each man. Now if you counted the number of fingers in a pregnant woman's body, you get the answer of 20 fingers. That's double the number she is supposed to have. In fact there's double of everything. There is another human inside of her, one that doesn't even share the same blood as her. It is a completely different human than the mother, and therefore, whether it's connected to her or not, it is not the mother and she does not have the choice to let it live or die.

"Your point on what to do with rapists is hypocritical to your abortion argument that killing a life is wrong."
No it's not.
"It's okay to kill one 'living' being for one thing, but not okay to kill another for something else?"
I believe you can kill someone who is deserving of being killed. I think raping someone is deserving of death. The child on the other hand is innocent. It may be in the way and obtrusive to the mother's life, but we don't kill people who annoy us or get in our way, otherwise my boss would be buried 6 feet under right now.
"So your saying I can justifiably murder when I feel someone has done something heinously unjust?"
When the court has deemed the person of doing something so heinously unjust that it is deserving of death, then they can be killed, yes.

"...the woman did not ask to be raped. She did not expect to suddenly become pregnant either. She may not want a child yet. She may have wanted a child her partner instead. Why should the woman be inclined to keep it? "
You're right, she didn't asked to be raped. She didn't expect all that, she may not want a child, everything, you may be 100% right. But the fetus inside her is a human being, and its life should not be ended due to it accidentally inconveniencing her. In a similar parallel, I came home one day to see my neighbor's Buick parked in my driveway. I went to ask him if he could please remove it, but he told me that he was moving, and he already gave it to my roomate. Please don't feel like I'm trivializing a rape situation, but its the best analogy I can come up with. Well, this Buick is an inconvenience to me, I didn't expect it to be in my drive way, and I wanted to park my motorcycle there instead, but if I were to go and slash the tires, tear off the doors, break the glass and sell it as scrap, I would be doing wrong. Now my roommate is like the baby, who is given the gift of a car (in the baby's situation, life). I didn't expect this to happen, but now that it has I need to deal with it the best way possible. Now I could do a few things, I could blow up the car kick my roommate out (abortion), I move the car (adoption), or I can let him keep the car there indefinitely (birth and keeping the child). I know this picture breaks down in areas because this is a simple picture trying to describe a very complex reality. But imagine if I were to say to my roommate, "I pay the rent here, I have the job, I pay the bills, and you're inconveniencing me. Now please keep in mind, your car is my car too because we live together. So I destroyed your- I mean- our car, and I'm kicking you out." This is wrong. So is destroying the life of a fetus simply because you feed it, house it, and are inconvenienced by it.

When you talk about me killing the oldest child, I am not saying to kill the oldest child. I am saying if the problem was really the finances, they would kill the oldest child because it make the most financial sense. Never would I endorse the murder of an already born child. Unless maybe of course it was inconveniencing you.

So I have yet to see any proof that the fetus is not human and not alive. The fetus is a bunch of cells just like we are, only we are more of them and we can see organization. I am pro-life because scientifically and philosophically, fetus' are human and alive, despite their level of development or who they're dependent on.
Ryuuikari

Con

"Now if you counted the number of fingers in a pregnant woman's body, you get the answer of 20 fingers. That's double the number she is supposed to have. In fact there's double of everything."
That is not strictly true. At the time at which most abortions take place the foetus does not possess a full set of organs yet, so no there is not double of everything.
"Whether it's connected to her or not, it is not the mother and she does not have the choice to let it live or die."
Actually, yes she does. Unless she is physically restrained or somehow prevented from doing so, the woman has the freedom of 'choice' to do whatever she wants, in this case choosing whether to abort the foetus. Someone merely telling her she can't, should hold no bearing on whether she will or won't.

"No it's not."
Since you could not share any reasons as to why your point was not hypocritical, I can assume that you had none to give.
"I believe you can kill someone who is deserving of being killed."
So you *are* saying that if one can justify their reasons, a person can be killed. But, murder is murder and at the end of the day you're endorsing it with points like that. Also it is heavily subjective to say that you can "kill someone who is deserving of being killed" since different people will have differing levels of what they would consider "deserving of being killed".

"But the fetus inside her is a human being, and its life should not be ended due to it accidentally inconveniencing her."
Abortion is used when the mother does not want a child generally because it would currently be an inconvenience. What does a person do when they have an inconvenience? They attempt to remove said inconvenience. If you no longer wanted your prepubescent child that was inconveniencing you, you would 'remove' them from your life (adoption, foster care, boarding school etc.). In the same train of thought abortion is used to 'remove' the foetus inside the woman; the death of the foetus is merely a by-product of this removal. There is no intent to kill, merely to remove. If you could remove a foetus without killing it, I'm sure everyone would be doing that instead but unfortunately we don't have such technology yet (at least from what I know). When applied to your analogy, moving the Buick from your parking spot (abortion) would 'remove' your inconvenience. But then it all comes back to whether your 'choice' would be to remove the inconvenience or not.

You explicitly stated "My response to this is very simple and very logical. Those parents should first kill their oldest child". There are so many other ways to alleviate the financial problem you posed. Put the child in a home. Put the child up for adoption or foster care. Leave the child with another family member. All of these are better ways than merely killing the child.

"Never would I endorse the murder of an already born child. Unless maybe of course it was inconveniencing you."
Sarcasm I hope...

I am Pro-Choice and believe abortion is not wrong for any reason because the final decision lies directly with the woman involved regardless of whether the foetus is alive or not. Also it shouldn't be considered murder because there is no intent to kill the foetus, merely the intent to remove it.

Thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
46 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by KaileyFox 2 years ago
KaileyFox
Pro, I just wanted to say that you did a good job defending your position. It was emotional, but you're right when you say abortion isn't just a logical debate. I think you did a good job fighting from a logical standpoint as well as an emotional one. Keep up the good work, and eve if you lose this one, know that you gave a lot of pro-lifers, especially me, something to think about the next time we get into a debate with someone that is pro-abortion.
Posted by saxman 2 years ago
saxman
I agreed with the pro on this case. This debate is harder to measure, as abortion is mostly a moral problem, and not quite so black and white. The pro brought up many points, and so did the con. There were some parts where I disagreed with both of them, but i am pro life myself, and the pro made my belief stronger. And on top of that, I try to debate in a "Devil's Advocate" sort of way. And so at the beginning i tried to side with the con. The arguments were hard to refute or prove due to the nature of the subject. I would have liked to see them sight some Supreme Court affirmations or descents on this subject. In my subjective opinion, the pro won.
Posted by johnnyvbassist 2 years ago
johnnyvbassist
this was just awful. conduct sucked for both.
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
*Me type.
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
he"s 50 and wasn"t in the army"
I said 50 and was in the army because I was shocked at what she said to you... I know it's already been cleared up mate, I was actually supporting you and was commenting on how I think you deserved more respect...

"You sure as hell don't know much about abortion"
First off, what an idiotic/ignorant statement to make. Nothing you've seen my type has been even remotely related to emotion,
I understand the basic concept, that it is killing the baby. (Well not really a baby yet but...) and I most definitely have way better arguments than you, but I do not know the actual science behind it. Kudos to you for figuring out that a 14 year old doesn't know every aspect of medicine. Here's a cookie:
0

Anyways, you got me. Yup that's right, I just love making babies with goats. It's the reason I came to this forum. I didn't think anyone would realize, but you're to smart for us "zendown"We just can't slip one past you mate!

If you want to use your apparent superior intelligence in a debate, we can go. I'll be able to back up either side of the argument.
Posted by zendown 2 years ago
zendown
Zeno: I think what actually "crashed & burned" was any semblance of rational conversation on the abortion topic at THIS "debate". Not being the swami you thought I was and having lost my last crystal ball in a poker game in March, I had no idea I was communicating with a 14 year old little girl & the apparent main topic addressed on the sight would be met at the very start with personal attacks against the participants calling them "douchbags," "idiots," "I know where you live," "" he"s 50 and wasn"t in the army" and now even more personal locker-room antics about "crashing and burning." Way to go! You managed to turn this exchange into the typical moron-fest one finds on Yahoo. If leaving an animal farm is crashing and burning, I"ll be doing it often. Now that I actually DO know who she is, I actually DO like the girl. No need to hang with this nonsense, but if you go over the exchanges you shall see a rather disrespectful pattern that I did not start. Remember: I had no idea who any of these people were including "little DUDE the chicken Punk" who needed to stick his nose into something other than his goat between gulps. BTW.. I never filled in a profile. Talk about "off topic"......Gimme a break!
Posted by zendown 2 years ago
zendown
DudeStop... you just keep choking & gagging on that goat spunk. Perhaps some twisted pervert will invent a twisted circus that will pass by your trailer park and hire you to perform your unique talents. You sure as hell don"t know much about abortion. Or are you "semi-living" proof why they should be completely free?
Posted by nohandlebars 2 years ago
nohandlebars
righty. continue on..
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
It's good to see such intelligent debaters on this website.

Especially the ones who use "stfu" and their main argument. Man. You sure showed me there mate.
Posted by nohandlebars 2 years ago
nohandlebars
@dudestop, just stfu, your picking a useless fight and making yourself look like a worse idiot than me.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TheSilentHorseman 2 years ago
TheSilentHorseman
rugbypro5RyuuikariTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Many of the arguments Pro made were either unfounded or a product of his emotions, especially the point where he states that an abortion would lead only to more suffering for a rape victim when the case is most usually the opposite. We can, by the way, pull the plug on people who suffer comas and have lost all facets of sentience and consciousness. Pro also didn't provide a great response to Con's sentience argument which tipped the debate greatly in Con's favor. Both cases need more evidence to them, but in regards to better response, Con was more masterful at its execution.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
rugbypro5RyuuikariTied
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: The fundamental reason for Pro's win in this debate is that I don't feel that Con's responses address his points sufficiently. There are a lot of assumptions in Pro's arguments (though I can see them getting fewer with time, and his arguments getting more solid with each debate) that aren't being questioned well enough. I think many of the concerns Con brings forward are well-met, but Pro finds solid ways to argue them back, and the response just isn't convincing. Looking back on this debate, I'll provide just an idea of where Con could have gone better. I think the debate on objective morality is a good one to have, and Con shouldn't have let it slip away. Is the death of an innocent child immoral? Not necessarily. If that child's death saves 10 people, is it still immoral? What if they're all innocent children as well? There are other various issues I see with Pro's arguments that could have been exploited, but suffice it to say that they weren't addressed well enough.
Vote Placed by TheSquirrel 2 years ago
TheSquirrel
rugbypro5RyuuikariTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not convince me of his argument, Con adequately refuted Pro's case.