The Instigator
BrandonSiler2044
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
m93samman
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

Abortion

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  
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/17/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,218 times Debate No: 18841
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (6)

 

BrandonSiler2044

Con

Abortion should be banned

1st Round stance...
THen back and forth on debates...
m93samman

Pro

I thank my opponent for instigating this debate and look forward to a fun one. I haven't done a debate in a long while; I hope this isn't too bad for a second debut.

Following my opponents rules, I'll only be presenting my stance. I believe that abortion should not be banned.

Back to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
BrandonSiler2044

Con

I agree that it should be banned.

Look, the government is to protect our rights?
Thats why all of my arguments and policies are supported by the constitution.

Now alot of pro-abortionists say that the constitution should be a state issue, because the constitution says "any specific subject that is not specificely mentioned in the constitution should be left to the states"

I agree with that.
The reason that I dont on abortion, is because abortion is mentioned in the constitution. The constitution protects peoples right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness... what was that? The right to Life.

Women have the right to choose, but people often forget about the baby's rights.. he has the right to life doesnt he?

The constitution also states that no life shall be taken without due process and a trial... well, who is to speak for the child? The government can't take life without due process of law, and it protects peoples right to life.

If you can prove to me that a fetus is not a human.... then my argument is invalid and you have won.
m93samman

Pro

My opponent took very little time in constructing his argument. I hope that the relative depth of mine may teach him to take careful consideration when debating.

He writes "The reason that I dont on abortion, is because abortion is mentioned in the constitution... The right to Life." Ignoring the poor grammar, my opponent argues that, because a fetus is "alive", it should not be aborted under any circumstance simply because the constitution says so. By making this argument, my opponent restrains himself under the following:

1) The constitution is flawless and true, and thus it ought be obeyed,
2) A fetus is necessarily a human as soon as a sperm cell and an egg cell form a zygote, and
3) There is no circumstance in which abortions are justified.

Before I proceed, we should note that the phrase my opponent cites regarding Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is actually not found in the Constitution- rather, it is in the Declaration of Independence. http://www.ushistory.org...

My arguments will stem from these three statements.

1) The "Constitution"


If we obey the constitution's "Right to Life", we must obey the statement "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility..."

If domestic tranquility in the case of some individual or some family requires the abortion of a fetus, it ought be respected.


2) The Humanity of a fetus

It is a commonly debated issue whether or not a fetus is human. The instant a sperm cell and an egg cell begin the fertilization process, it is unlikely that this unicellular organism is a human. Humans are by definition, non-unicellular.


3) Circumstantiality


Let's take a scenario in which a mother's health is threatened by the fetus, and if this mother was to nurse the fetus to infancy, both the mother and the fetus would die. However, we know that an abortion would save the mother's life. Should the fetus be aborted?

There is no debate here. The answer is yes.


Back to my opponent.


I thank the readers in advance for their time and effort in reading this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
BrandonSiler2044

Con

First off, that wasn't poor grammer. I was reffering to my previous statement where I said I agree... and then in that particlar part I said I dont.. I meant I dont agree. I guess thats just the negativty of text debates haha.

Secondly, I never said the constitution is flawless.. you put those words in my mouth.. It is a manmade document and man is known to fall. When it comes to government yes, we need to abide by it because that is what our country was founded on, but not because its an flawless document, because it isnt.

Now to the issue.. you argue about domestic tranquility. Yes I agree that if a mother is dying and you have to choose one or the other, then it should be legal. But how often does that happen? My dad's a doctor for 40 years and he has never seen that happen. Its a very rare occurence.

Your argument is that the fetus is unicellular organism at conception so by definition it is not a human. Well if it were to grow and develop it would be a human wouldn't it? Since when does the level of development determine whether you are human or not. A 20 year old man is no more human than a 2 year old child. They are both humans!

FOr your last argument, Again, I believe that that should be the only exception to abortion... But like I said, how often does that happen? Its very rare. And I agree with you on that because it is no different than having two people drowning in a lake and you can only save one of them. Its not like your killling one by saving the other. SO thats the only circumstance abortion should be allowed. Besides that, ABortion should be outlawed because it is murder and murder is not right nor is it unconstitutional.

THank you
m93samman

Pro

I beg the understanding of the readers, but I seriously fail to see any logical argument being made by my opponent.


Nonetheless, I'm going to pass on this round because my opponent won't be able to refute them if I was to do that. Vote Pro, and I thank the readers again for their time.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
CON: "First off, that wasn't poor grammer. I was reffering to my previous statement where I said I agree... and then in that particlar part I said I dont.. I meant I dont agree."

Way too many pronouns. Way too many spelling mistakes. I have no idea what in GOD's name you are saying here.
Posted by m93samman 5 years ago
m93samman
Xiao Fei, you need to do a bit of work on reading the construction of the arguments.
Posted by m93samman 5 years ago
m93samman
Thank you for your time, googlemabob! Just get active with the site and you'll get to vote too! :D
Posted by googlemabob 5 years ago
googlemabob
While I may not be able to vote, I completely agree with pro. Thank you for excellent points.
Posted by m93samman 5 years ago
m93samman
I forgot the source for the constitution, sorry

http://www.usconstitution.net...
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 months ago
dsjpk5
BrandonSiler2044m93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: According to the vote moderation team, votes on a debate over six months old will not be moderated. I vote Con because I have a good friend named Brandon.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
BrandonSiler2044m93sammanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: CON states: Yes I agree that if a mother is dying and you have to choose one or the other, then [abortion] should be legal." By doing so he conceded the debate to PRO. CON: "But like I said, how often does that happen? Its very rare." So is murder, and we have laws to protect ourselves from murder. Just because instances where abortion should be legal are rare does NOT mean that we should not account for the occurrence in our laws. A blanket ban on abortion would do these women a grave injustice. CON dug himself a gigantic hole and buried himself in it.
Vote Placed by XiaoFei98 5 years ago
XiaoFei98
BrandonSiler2044m93sammanTied
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:34 
Reasons for voting decision: Given that there was terrible punctuation and grammar, I gave pro more points, but I still think that abortion is wrong and that it is a baby people are killing. Here's an analogy. "I'm a construction worker and I'm going to blow up a building. I don't know if there's any life in that building, but I'm going to blow it up anyway. There could be someone in there that I don't know, but I'm still going to blow it up." That's wrong.
Vote Placed by GaryBacon 5 years ago
GaryBacon
BrandonSiler2044m93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Although Pro only made one actual argument in the three rounds, the argument was more convincing that anything posted by Con.
Vote Placed by Kinesis 5 years ago
Kinesis
BrandonSiler2044m93sammanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro correctly identified the assumptions of Con's arguments. Con's answers weren't convincing. The resolution appears to be a blanket ban of abortion, but Con concedes they should sometimes be allowed.
Vote Placed by Illegalcombatant 5 years ago
Illegalcombatant
BrandonSiler2044m93sammanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: What exactly did Con mean when he said Abortion should be banned ? This can quite easily and reasonably be seen as Con saying abortion should be banned without exception. With this interpretation it is shown the resolution is negated as Con does allow an exception to this rule. I think this is reasonable cause in the first round Con merely says abortion should be banned, no mentioned of exceptions, no mention of qualifications. Voteing solely on arguments, 3 points to Pro.