The Instigator
Samacado
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
SchinkBR
Pro (for)
Winning
48 Points

Abortion is evil baby murder!

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,087 times Debate No: 3387
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (15)

 

Samacado

Con

Say a baby is going to be born soon, and for some reason the baby is inconvinient or immposible to be raised. Is it a terrible thing to 'kill' an unborn child if the situation demands it? For the small amount of pain the baby may feel (they develop nervous systems around eight months) is it bad compared to the pain it could cause to the family of the baby or even to itself if it lived and suffered? It can hardly be called killing because 1 in 5 babies abort anyways. And who knows best? An unfeeling clump of cells or a mature human?

Okay, anyone who wants to reply...
SchinkBR

Pro

First of all, babies can feel pain in ten weeks, not 8 months. Even if it is a "small" amount of pain, it's still murder. That's like saying it's okay to shoot someone in the head because they'll only feel a small amount of pain. And how do you know it's a small ammount, it's not like the baby can tell you.

Why would the situation ever demand to kill the baby (aside from mother endagerment) there. And how can it be immpossible to raise a child. That statement makes no sense at all.

As for the pain for the family. Yeah, the baby might suffer and have pain. But so did everyone else at that point. And the pain is easily balanced by all of the joys that having and raising a child brings.
Debate Round No. 1
Samacado

Con

Are you sure about that ten weeks thing? I read a article and it said that, mabey i remembered wrong. The small amount of pain it may or may not feel as you so kindly pointed out, may be nothing when you compare it to how badly the baby may be raised, even if the parents try their hardest. The parents may not have enough money to raise the child, they may not have the resources, or mabey they have to travel or they're not ready to have a child. Are you saying that if a child is about to be born to a fourteen year old girl with sickel cell disease, AIDS, and a family history of cancer that the baby should be forced to live in suffering?

It is not murder because the life being taken is not yet a life, it could be called potential life, a very conservative, idiotic thing to say if you ask me, as there are four or five chances for potential life every time 'babies are made' and three or four of those atoumaticly abort, without anyone getting arrested. Even if you did terminate this 'potential life' you aren't commiting homocide. You are ending the existence of an undeveloped clump of parasitic cells that may or may not grow into a healthy human (pardon my cold way of describing this, I'm just debating).

Mur-der: noun; the unlawful killing of another human especially with mallice or homicidal intent.

Now abortion is not unlawful. It is perfectly legal. Emberyonic cells are not humans. They are cells. And when you terminate them you are not malicious or homicidal, you are probably more sane than most people, and you have a degree to show for it.

I'm suprised that you didn't bring up the subject of depriving the world of a brilliant mind or artist. You may want to bring that up next round, because I've got a counter argument already set up for it ;)
SchinkBR

Pro

http://www.prolifeacrossamerica.org...

They can feel pain at ten weeks, although their nervous system isn't complete, it is developed enough at this point to feel the pain of death.

As for the raising of the baby. If the families situation is really that bad then they can always give it up for adoption. There are millions of families that want to adopt babies. Two of my good friends are adopted and I'm glad, and i'm sure they are too, that their parent's didn't have abortions. Furthermore, many people have risen up from poverty and overcome their disadvantages and made the world a better place.

As for being born to a family of bad medical history. MY family has a history of cancer, SIDS, heart attack, and mental retardation (my cousin, who by the way, i'm glad is alive) and my parents didn't decide to abort me, my twin or my older brother. ANd coincidently, I support their decision.

How could it not be murder. Life begins at conception and laws supports that (DWI/hitting a pregnant women). That "parasite" as you so cold heartily called it has HUMAN DNA, thus it is a human life.
Debate Round No. 2
Samacado

Con

Regardless if a pro-life group considers it a human or not, it is not murder. If we look at the definition again, it does not fit any of the criteria (perhaps being human) so how can it be murder? Like I said before, who knows better? The parents or the child. THe parents, the group of people who are fully developed and (hopfully) have a couple decades experience in life. Or the child, who's greatest accomplishments according to your pro-life site is clenching his fist and smiling. Obviously the parents. I will admit that abortion is not always nesacary, but in the situations it is necasary then it should be allowed to go right ahead. It is up to the parents.

It is not evil, it is helping pepole. It is not murder (not going to explain that again). It may not even be a baby involved, as you pointed out in the first argument, it can't tell you.

Have to go now, thank you for the argument.
SchinkBR

Pro

I never siad that any pro-life group said it was human, I said that although I'm, sure every pro-life group would support me in that claim. All the website wsas for was my source on the ten weeks claim. However since you seem to not think that despite having human DNA, it's not human, I'll prove to you otherwise.

According to http://www.biology-online.org... the defintion of a human is:

Belonging to man or mankind; having the qualities or attributes of a man; of or pertaining to man or to the race of man

or from http://www.yourdictionary.com...

of, belonging to, or typical of man (Homo sapiens) the human race
consisting of or produced by people human society

Or http://www.merriam-webster.com...
of, relating to, or characteristic of humans

Now I'd say, and I don't see how one could disagree with this, having human DNA gives you all of the qualities and characteristics of being human. Thus an unborn baby is human and thus killing it, even by your own definition, is murder.

Furthermore you have completely ignored my points on adoption. If the parents feel that they can not, or should not raise a child they don't need to. There are millions of families that want to adopt so why not give them the gift of life. And even parents do decide to keep the baby and raise it in the so called "harmful and painfull" enviroment so what. MAny of the worlds most important leaders, and today and in the past, have come from similar situations.

Oh and I agree, it is up to the parents, but it's up to them when they choose to have sex. At the time someone is old enough to actually have sex, they are smart enough to know the risk they are taking and they need to take responsibilty for they actions by either taking care of the child or by giving it to someone who will. Killing it does nothing but sweep a dark a dirty secret under the rug and in the long run, only hurts everyone involved.

By your method of ending pain, it would be ok to shoot and kill someone with cancer, because they were in pain, no matter how likely it is that they would survive and make the world a better place. Sorry Lance, no Tour de Frabce for you, Samacado wanted to end your misery instead

I will leave you with this thought. How is murdering people ever helpful and not evil. All it's really doing is finding a scape goat or an irrational quick fix to your problems. Genocides such as WW2 and Rowanda didn't help the Germans or the Huttu establish a better economy or give them any kind of peace. Shooting someone who was once a criminal doesn't make the world any safer or better, it just makes his family and friends mad at you and it makes you a criminal.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by scissorhands7 9 years ago
scissorhands7
Poor debate.. there really was hardly any facts at all
Posted by SchinkBR 9 years ago
SchinkBR
oh about the facts, i do feel a bit guilty about bringing in sources in the last round and thus didn't give my opponent a chance to refute them, i thought this was a 5 round debate. Anyways i'd just like to appologize to samacado for that
Posted by orville 9 years ago
orville
illegal or not, the question is very evident.. i commend Schink for being consistent and for pasting facts; and simply for being rational..

this is not an issue on whether abortion should be legal or forever remain illegal and make its way underground; but abortion is an evil doing..

with this said, i give this round to pro..
Posted by SchinkBR 9 years ago
SchinkBR
And just what point are you refering to?
Posted by XsamacadoX 9 years ago
XsamacadoX
thank you people who see my point. also if you couldn't tell I accidently deleted my account.
Posted by mjg283 9 years ago
mjg283
I didn't say abortion was right or moral. In fact, if you look at my profile you'll see that I'm currently in a debate arguing that it SHOULD be illegal.

This demonstrates that people should careful and meticulous when framing the subject of a debate. If you want to argue that abortion is evil, that's fine. But you can't argue that abortion constitutes murder when abortion, at least at the present time, doesn't meet one of the key elements of murder -- illegality.
Posted by SchinkBR 9 years ago
SchinkBR
Kudos to solarman. What a great point. A whether or not it's "murder" (which it is) it's still evil.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
Here is the statement I will analyze

"In any event, abortion, is NOT murder, at least not at the present time."

Yes but soon the innocent will be protected and the evil abortionist and their communist scum racist murdering front groups like planned parenthood, who protect child rapists

not at this present time

not at this present time

Once blacks were slaves and it was the LAW

Once women couldnt vote and it was the LAW

the LAW aint always what is right and MORAL

and you know it

not at this present time
Posted by mjg283 9 years ago
mjg283
So abortion is the murder of evil babies? Interesting. In any event, abortion, is NOT murder, at least not at the present time. Murder as defined as an UNLAWFUL killing of a human being. Since abortion is not unlawful, it is not murder. It might be killing without justification, but at present, it is not murder.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
you won it hands down

No pro abortion person could even win that debate

Evil does not equal a "choice"
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by stormchaser221 8 years ago
stormchaser221
SamacadoSchinkBRTied
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 starkmad 8 years ago
starkmad
SamacadoSchinkBRTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 SchinkBR 9 years ago
SchinkBR
SamacadoSchinkBRTied
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 Tameric 9 years ago
Tameric
SamacadoSchinkBRTied
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 
Vote Placed by orville 9 years ago
orville
SamacadoSchinkBRTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by liberalconservative 9 years ago
liberalconservative
SamacadoSchinkBRTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Oolon_Colluphid 9 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
SamacadoSchinkBRTied
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 
Vote Placed by Tee 9 years ago
Tee
SamacadoSchinkBRTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
SamacadoSchinkBRTied
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 
Vote Placed by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
SamacadoSchinkBRTied
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:03