The Instigator
cnb
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
JimmyBoJangles
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Abortion should stay legal

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 1 vote the winner is...
cnb
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 920 times Debate No: 70296
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (1)

 

cnb

Pro

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Final words, no new arguments

Good luck!
JimmyBoJangles

Con

Good Day Fair Sir
Debate Round No. 1
cnb

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting.

First, I would like to say that abortion is not killing a human being. Since a human being, by definition, is a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance. (1) So an embryo is classified as a human being.

Even if abortion would be illegal, women would still seek a way for abortion, bringing them to find illegal places performing abortion, which would not have good hygiene and could be the cause for a lot of health problems and even cause fatality for the women.

42% of women carrying out abortion are poor. (2) These women would not be able to provide for themselves and the baby. They would also miss out on work and lose wages because of it.

1: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
2: https://www.guttmacher.org...
JimmyBoJangles

Con

My boy Tim. Your first paragraph doesn't make any sense. You stated that abortion is not killing a human being because an embryo is not a human being, proved that they were not humans, then stated that they were not humans. Also your definition of a homo sapien is flawed. Babies that are born do not have superior mental development, cannot talk, and don't even have the neck muscles to hold their heads up. With that definition you could kill a new born, and you wouldn't be killing a human being.
Also Abortion is murder since you are killing something that has potential to be a human. And the bible says that murder is wrong.
Debate Round No. 2
cnb

Pro

I agree, that my definition of a human being has flaws.
The main idea behind that was that abortion is not actually killing a human being, sine an embryo is still not having the same characteristics as a grown human being. It doesn't even feel pain until it's at least 24 weeks old. (1)

Abortion is not a murder since, the fetus only has the POTENTIAL to be a human and is yet not a human. Murder is wrong, but abortion is not a murder.

1: http://www.motherjones.com...
JimmyBoJangles

Con

Pain doesn't matter. If the definition of murder is that the murdered feel pain, then you could sedate someone, and then kill them and it wouldn't be murder. Also killing anything that is alive is murder. That is why vegetarians say "Meat is murder". Just because it's not human doesn't mean murder is wrong. You can't just kill a dog and get away with it.
Debate Round No. 3
cnb

Pro

cnb forfeited this round.
JimmyBoJangles

Con

Well then, I guess you don't have an answer to my logic.
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
===================================================================
1Credo. 7 points to Con. Reason for removal: (1) A forfeit is not a valid reason to award sources and S&G points to an opponent. (2) A single round forfeit, by itself, is not a valid reason to award argument points. (3) Pro admitting his definition wasn't perfect was not equivalent to conceding the entire debate. A valid RFD would still need to consider Pro's other arguments, e.g. about mere potentiality, rather than chalking Pro's statement up as a full forfeit.

Reasons for voting decision: Ff & Pro admitted that his definition of a human being was flawed; this was a forfeiture in itself as it discredited his entire case in favor of abortion.
======================================================================

-bluesteel (Voting Moderator)
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
Konstanben. 7 points to Con. Reason for removal: failure to explain argument point. Pro *did* advance arguments; a single round forfeit does not justify giving the other side all 7 points. Only a forfeit of all rounds justifies this.

Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Posted by bsh1 1 year ago
bsh1
It's mocking, IMO. You call him a name that is more than likely not his--it just feels condescending.
Posted by JimmyBoJangles 1 year ago
JimmyBoJangles
bsh1, calling him Tim is not out of snarkiness, but rather respect.
Posted by JimmyBoJangles 1 year ago
JimmyBoJangles
Amen brother, I don't care where you come from, but we are all blessed in the eyes of the lord.
Posted by Russia_The_almighty 1 year ago
Russia_The_almighty
Wow! I am a bit surprised. I am anti-abortion and usually the pro abortion guy wins. Now it looks like anti-abortion guy in a debate will win. Also.
In Soviet Russia, we believe in God!
Posted by henryzietlow 1 year ago
henryzietlow
I'm really proud of you, missmedic. You've came so far
Posted by JimmyBoJangles 1 year ago
JimmyBoJangles
There you go! Nice use of a comma to separate two ideas.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
Also you made me look up ellipsis......................
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
I come here to exchange ideas and opinions, not to have the grammar police bust my balls.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bsh1 1 year ago
bsh1
cnbJimmyBoJanglesTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct would've gone Con due to Pro's forfeit, but Pro continues being snarky (e.g. "Tim"). Thus, it's null. As the only one to cites sources, cnb gets those points. Con only rebuts a portion of what Pro is talking about (pain), but fails to address Pro's core claim that the fetus is not a human at this point. Arguments to Pro.