The Instigator
16kadams
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
rogue
Pro (for)
Winning
28 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: 10/18/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,659 times Debate No: 18864
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (9)

 

16kadams

Con

1. It justifies irresponsibility of the consequences that can come from unprotected sex.
2. It can harm the mother with many complications, one of them is placenta praevia.
3. Sometimes makes the mother unable to have kids again.
4. The baby is alive, it is not just a group of cells as some abortion doctors describe it has brain waves, finger prints, can wake and sleep make fists, and feels touch.

I am open to anyone in this challenge.
rogue

Pro

" It justifies irresponsibility of the consequences that can come from unprotected sex."- This is a fallacy. Women who get abortions suffer because of the emotional and physical difficulties of getting rid of a child one is carrying. They also have to pay a great deal of money. Getting an abortion is a bad consequence of having unprotected sex, but it is better than them having the child because it keeps them from having all their plans and ambitions ruined because of a child and it keeps an unwanted child from being brought into the world.

"It can harm the mother with many complications, one of them is placenta praevia."- This is true. But, the risks and harms that come from pregnancy are much higher and more serious.

"Sometimes makes the mother unable to have kids again."- If that is a risk the mother is willing to take then it should be her choice whether or not to risk her fertility.

"The baby is alive, it is not just a group of cells as some abortion doctors describe it has brain waves, finger prints, can wake and sleep make fists, and feels touch."- Just because something is alive does not make it inherently worth keeping alive. We don't like to keep vegetables alive, or murderers, or certain animals.
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Con

Ok, you have a great argument, but you make it sound like the girl was assault or something. This is untrue, here are some basic statistics: Only 7% of abortions are for hard cases. Mother's health 3%, baby problem 3%, incest/assault 1%, or social reasons/birth control 93%. These come to us from Alan Guttmacher Institute, a.k.a. a special part of planned parenthood. So 93%, that sounds like a lot of unprotected intercourse going on to me, so it is safe to say that abortion is used for reliving the consequences.

Ok you say why do we keep not vegetables alive, because their not human. We have brains that function, and we eat those. It is worth keeping it alive, and when you kill it you will feel bad. And even If you don't want it, adoption is another option, at least it now has a chance for a good life.

Now the Complication thing. Did you know they may have liked Abortion to breast cancer! And possibly cervical cancer! Well to me that sounds a lot worse then and pregnancy complications.

Yes it is the mothers risk because she may not ever have kids again, but that's terrible. Most people don't know much about abortions when they do it, and rarely do they get told unless their educated like you and me. Well and you said "mothers risk". Also like saying her choice am I wrong? Well think of it like this, can a woman chose to kill someone without consequences? NO!
rogue

Pro

"So 93%, that sounds like a lot of unprotected intercourse going on to me, so it is safe to say that abortion is used for reliving the consequences."- So the mother's life plans and goals are considered "social reasons." That is crap. It is so important that a young, maybe foolish, girl's life isn't ruined by one mistake. Even if she did have unprotected sex, she is young! She is a kid! People make mistakes! They do not deserve to have they lives pushed way off track because of one stupid mistake.

"Ok you say why do we keep not vegetables alive, because their not human. We have brains that function, and we eat those. It is worth keeping it alive, and when you kill it you will feel bad. And even If you don't want it, adoption is another option, at least it now has a chance for a good life."- You know I am talking about vegetables as in people in comas that won't wake up right? We eat brains? Lolz.

"And even If you don't want it, adoption is another option, at least it now has a chance for a good life."- Still that is nine months of a mother's life which could be wasted. Pregnancy could stop her from taking her dream job, a life-changing opportunity, or hurt her financial situation. Not to mention that pregnancy is ten times more dangerous than abortion. Also, do you know what percentage of kids put up for adoption are adopted? A very small percentage. We already have a surplus of unwanted orphans, why add more to an already overpopulated earth? Also it is extremely emotionally difficult for a new mother to give up her baby.

"Now the Complication thing. Did you know they may have liked Abortion to breast cancer! And possibly cervical cancer! Well to me that sounds a lot worse then and pregnancy complications."- The key word here being "may have." You would need to cite this anyway. Do you know all possible pregnancy complications? You can die from pregnancy complications. You can develop depression from pregnancy as well as many other diseases and disorders.

"Most people don't know much about abortions when they do it, and rarely do they get told unless their educated like you and me."- That is their problem and does not warrant it being illegal. Most people do not know much about politics and they still vote. Should we outlaw voting?

"Well and you said "mothers risk". Also like saying her choice am I wrong? Well think of it like this, can a woman chose to kill someone without consequences? NO!"- The fetus is not a person. It is a bunch of cells. It does not feel pain, nor is it sad when it is killed. It hasn't had time to become a person. The mother on the other hand has people that love and care about her. She gets priority. She should not have her life ruined for a bunch of cells that happen to be human that no one will miss.
Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Con

I agree people probably don't want one mistake ruining their lives, but it still can. Killing a child that could row u to cure cancer. The kid might be a ditch digger so what? he lives that's the important thing.

You can't blame me for being dumb about the vegetables, I'm 14, and you syntax wasn't good either. Ok here is why we don't kill the brain dead people, because somebody likes that person enough keep him alive. It makes me ad to see no one care for the defenseless baby.

Ok, 9 months of wasted life what a load of nonsense. If she is anything like someone with a heart, she would think " i get to let a child live, not be killed" if she was O.K. with abortion it may be different, I'm not saying you don't have a heart, but it just doesn't mind losing a baby in the world. Now not many adoptions go unadopted in the U.S. they d i other countries. the reason for this is because in this country you get a tax break for adopting children. That's a great way to have advertize.

Ok they have almost undoubtedly linked it to breast cancer here's my site:http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

No we shouldn't outlaw voting, because its against our constitution, and it is reasonable to say that abortion is against it too. 8th amendment.
rogue

Pro

I agree people probably don't want one mistake ruining their lives, but it still can. Killing a child that could row u to cure cancer. The kid might be a ditch digger so what? he lives that's the important thing."- So the kids a terrible life because he grew up in orphanages. He is unwanted and probably jobless or has a terrible job and wishes he wasn't born? I mean what you are saying is all hypothetical but it is more likely that this child will grow up in orphanages than be adopted. If the child is allowed to be born it is likely that the mother and the child end up more unhappy than they would have been had the baby been aborted.

"Ok here is why we don't kill the brain dead people, because somebody likes that person enough keep him alive. It makes me ad to see no one care for the defenseless baby."- Um my point was that we often kill vegetables. If the family gives consent to pull the plug on the patient because they will never wake up, it is legal to let them die since their future would be dark. That is why we should allow babies to be aborted. The baby being born would likely cause the mother and child's futures to be darker than if the baby was aborted. Why should anyone care about the fetus? It hasn't developed a personality or friends or family yet. For all intents and purposes it is just a bunch of cells. The fetus has not done anything warranting that people should care about it. I don't care about you because you are alive. I care about someone because that person has become a person with friends and family and emotions which will all be hurt if I kill you. The fetus has not.

"Ok, 9 months of wasted life what a load of nonsense. If she is anything like someone with a heart, she would think " I get to let a child live, not be killed"- Do you realize how far someone can come in their lives in nine months? They could be offered the job they've been dreaming of during that time. They could be trying to find love or get married. Not to mention the embarrassment and ridicule unmarried young mothers get. When a baby you do not want is growing inside you and interfering with things you have always wanted, you aren't going to think "I'm going to let a child live." You are going to be thinking how crappy yours and the child's lives are going to be and how much you with you could get rid of it.

As for your link here is a direct quote from it:
"But Cancer Research UK questioned the accuracy of the figures and said women should not be unduly worried.
Dr Kat Arney, the charity's science information manager, said: ‘This is a very small study of only 300 women, so there are likely to be statistical errors in a sample of this size.
‘Much larger studies involving tens of thousands of women have shown no significant links.'"

It is definitely not conclusive by any means that the medical community believes this to be true. Also the article mentions that smoking causes breast cancer but that is still legal isn't it? Are we going to outlaw everything that may cause cancer? If the woman wants to risk breast cancer it is her decision, not the federal government's.

"No we shouldn't outlaw voting, because its against our constitution, and it is reasonable to say that abortion is against it too. 8th amendment."- Um the 8th amendment is about excessive bails and fines....that has nothing to do with voting. As for abortion being unconstitutional, the Supreme Court would beg to differ. The famous case of Roe vs Wade made that clear. Under the constitution all powers not delegated to the federal governments are left to the states. The constitution does not give Congress the right to outlaw medical procedures so it cannot be federally outlawed. As the Supreme Court ruled in this case, the right to abort a pregnancy falls under the right to privacy protected by the 14th amendment.

http://www.oyez.org...#

I have not even brought up the fact that you are denying women a right to decide what can and cannot be done with their bodies.
Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Con

Alright I'm going to talk about roe v wade first. It's not in the supreme courts power create laws, only say this is what they think. So this Roe v Wade case is invalid. The only people that can make bill which may turn into laws are the congress. the president only signs them. I think Roe v wade should have been a case for congress. So yes if congress can make laws, then its in their right to be in this case, not the supreme court. The courts can look at the law after it has been passed. My Dad was a lawyer so this education helps.

Also the vegetable thing, yes someone can kill them if needed, but assuming this is after they have had some age means they've already done their potential, whereas a baby hasn't even started. http://goodnews.ws... this is a picture of a fetus, it isn't just cells.

I have talked to other women on this topic, and they dislike abortion. Even when a women doesn't want a child, she will usually not abort it because she thinks its morally wrong. And I am not for banning abortion, only for certain cases. If it threatens the woman's life by all means save yourself, but if you are out partying should you not ave consequences for a mistake you did. When you make a mistake I believe you should deal with it, is your problem not the baby's.

No I'm sorry I used bad syntax with the 8th amendment thing. I believe that Abortion is against the 8th amendment because it is cruel and unusual. Putting a spatula looking thing up there then throwing the baby in a bio-hazard bad is immoral. Here's the bible's take on abortion since I'm talking about being moral: God knows the preborn child. "You knit me in my mother���‚��„�s womb . . . nor was my frame unknown to you when I was made in secret" (Psalm 139:13,15). God also helps and calls the preborn child. "You have been my guide since I was first formed . . . from my mother���‚��„�s womb you are my God" (Psalm 22:10-11). "God���‚��� from my mother���‚��„�s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace" (St. Paul to the Galatians 1:15).

Abortion is linked to breast cancer through multiple studies, here's breast cancer and abortion people agreeing they are linked: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com...
rogue

Pro

"Alright I'm going to talk about roe v wade first. It's not in the supreme courts power create laws, only say this is what they think. So this Roe v Wade case is invalid. The only people that can make bill which may turn into laws are the congress. the president only signs them. I think Roe v wade should have been a case for congress. So yes if congress can make laws, then its in their right to be in this case, not the supreme court. The courts can look at the law after it has been passed. My Dad was a lawyer so this education helps."- Wow. Just wow. Roe vs Wade is extremely valid especially in accordance to what you said. The Supreme Court decides if laws are constitutional or not. You claimed that abortion goes against the constitution. The Supreme Court decided in Roe vs Wade that the right to an abortion is constitutional. You know nothing about our own constitution if you think that Congress can just make any law. Like I stated before: in the constitution it states that any powers not delegated to the federal government are left to the states. Congress can only write laws concerning certain subjects such as taxes, the military, and commerce. Medical procedures are not something Congress can make a law about.

"Also the vegetable thing, yes someone can kill them if needed, but assuming this is after they have had some age means they've already done their potential, whereas a baby hasn't even started. http://goodnews.ws...... this is a picture of a fetus, it isn't just cells."- I know what a fetus looks like thank you. I have already refuted this argument by talking about why I think that fetuses are not people.

"I have talked to other women on this topic, and they dislike abortion. Even when a women doesn't want a child, she will usually not abort it because she thinks its morally wrong. And I am not for banning abortion, only for certain cases. If it threatens the woman's life by all means save yourself, but if you are out partying should you not ave consequences for a mistake you did. When you make a mistake I believe you should deal with it, is your problem not the baby's."- Hey guess what? I have talked to other women about abortion and they think it needs to be legal. There is no majority opinion on this issue and even if there were that would not make it more valid. You cannot say that most women think abortion is morally wrong because you do not have even close to a large enough sample of women's opinions to make this valid. So you just admitted that abortion should stay legal? Whether someone is living or not is the only thing that matters in this case? What if an irresponsible woman has unprotected sex but has another condition that would cause he life to be in danger if she were to have the baby, while another woman who had protected sex but still got pregnant(yes this happens) but would most likely not die from complications from pregnancy? The responsible woman's life could be dramatically altered for the worse even though she did everything right and yet the irresponsible woman's does not. The point is that in cases of law you cannot discriminate that way. So what if some women get reinforced for bad behavior? That is a price I am willing to pay to keep young girls lives from being ruined.

"I believe that Abortion is against the 8th amendment because it is cruel and unusual. Putting a spatula looking thing up there then throwing the baby in a bio-hazard bad is immoral."- Abortion is certainly not unusual and it is not cruel because the fetus has is not conscience and feels no pain. It has never truly lived since it has never been awake. Secondly, you still have the wrong amendment.

The quotes from the Bible have nothing to do with abortion. The Bible has no stance on abortion because abortion did not exist when the Bible was written.

It is still very clear that the medical community is not in agreement about whether or not abortion causes breast cancer. I cited this in the last argument. I also showed why abortion should not be illegal even if it does. It is up to the mother to decide whether or not she wants to take the risk. You still have not responded to some of my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
16kadams

Con

Your right, but they made a law, so they broke the constitution themselves. So basically an use of power. I'm not arguing against the supreme court, I'm just saying they made a constitutional mistake. So it should have started in congress, then ended in the supreme court, then i might have different views.

And you think a fetus isn't human, so when does being a human start? I have said my view you have none on this issue. When does it start? It might be newborn, or even adult. you say a fetus isn't because it is still changing. adults and newborns are hugely different, and humans are ever changing until death. so i think we need a starting point, why not at the beginning?

I have never said abortion needs to be illegal i just think only for certain cases, aka rape or when her life is in danger. And sometimes I even am skeptical against abortion for the assault case. So stop putting, words in my mouth.And yes people could protected and still become pregnant, they took the risk still. So stop f$%^(*. I'm pro choice in certian cases.

It isn't clear your right, but as I said above, it may lead to other cancers, and you only proved ond possibly wrong. And it has a lot of proof for breast cancer because people in Brazil did a survey, 30% of breast cancer women have had at least 1 abortion, and 40% of women who have had abortion will get breast cancer. So yo saying i didn't respond it looks like i did, and you have clearly not responded to the cervical cancer argument.
rogue

Pro

"Your right, but they made a law, so they broke the constitution themselves."- What are you talking about? Who made a law? The Supreme Court did not make a law, they declared it unconstitutional to outlaw abortion. Please research what you are arguing about before you comment on it.

"And you think a fetus isn't human, so when does being a human start?"- I did not say that it was not human. I said it was not a person. My cat is more a person than that fetus. Why? Because it has affected people. It has emotions. It has people that love it. It has a personality. That fetus is just a bunch of cells in my opinion.

"you say a fetus isn't because it is still changing. adults and newborns are hugely different, and humans are ever changing until death."- I never said this. And I agree that humans are ever-changing. One other issue is that if all the babies that were aborted were allowed to live, we would have a lot lower standard of living and a much more overpopulated earth than it already is. This would hurt the lives of all of us. So let's help those who are already alive with feelings and personalities and people who care about us and not further overpopulate the earth. We do not possess enough resources to keep alive all the babies that would be born if abortion were not legal. This would cause a lot more people to have problems having enough food and cause a lot more people to be poor. So what is it going to be? Some unwanted fetuses who feel no pain? Or a lot of people who have lives and emotions and people who care about them?

"I have never said abortion needs to be illegal i just think only for certain cases, aka rape or when her life is in danger."- First of all you should have put that in the resolution because the resolution says "abortion" meaning that con is against all abortion and pro is for all abortion. I already explained why making abortion legal in only certain cases is insensible.

"And yes people could protected and still become pregnant, they took the risk still."- So no one should have sex unless they want a baby? You really think that would ever happen? Plus that is a lot to ask of people. You say they took the risk, so shouldn't they be allowed to take that risk? Shouldn't the mother be able to take the risks of getting an abortion? People are not going to stop having sex just because they don't want a baby. So instead of blaming them for all the unwanted babies that the world would have were abortion illegal, let us keep abortion legal and be sensible.

I have not even brought up the issue that were abortion illegal, that would not stop it from happening. It would happen in unregulated, unsanitary clinics and the procedures would be much more dangerous for the mother.

The statistics you posted in the last argument do not show much. Many women will have abortions throughout their lifetime and many of them may get breast cancer. Unless one can show causation and not just correlation between the two, your statistics mean nothing. As for the study in Brazil, it said in your link that it was a study of only 300 women. Another study in England was conducted using a much larger sample and it showed no correlation or causation. Your own link said this.

Lastly you never cited any site claiming abortion is linked to cervical cancer. Your assertion went unsupported and so there was no need to refute it. The readers can find things you did not respond to. I hope you learned a lot from this debate and type more distinguishable arguments.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
ah...I remember those fails...I am better now...good times.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
kadams wrote:
: Ok. i actually agree in this debate i didn't do well. I have a new method which seems to work better.

So, do you want to debate me?
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Ok. i actually agree in this debate i didn't do well. I have a new method which seems to work better.
Posted by rogue 5 years ago
rogue
In all honesty it was just because he posted "this is dumb" and started b!tching and it was annoying to me. If I lose the conduct point for it I could care less because I feel the arguments I made were better anyway.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Like I said, had I seen her comment before voting, I'm not sure I'd have given her that point. But maybe I would have, since her rudeness was in the comments and his was in the debate. I'll let it stand.
Posted by XiaoFei98 5 years ago
XiaoFei98
I think you can change your vote wiploc.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Rogue wrote:
: You are dumb.

Uncalled for. I might not have given you the conduct point if I'd seen that before voting.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
here's my view on this debate,its ok if i lose because its practice for when i become a politician.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
you don't have an opening argument.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
And i didn't call you dumb, you only said that to me.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 months ago
dsjpk5
16kadamsrogueTied
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: Being older than six months old, the statute of limitations is up on vote reporting. I vote Con because 16k is a stud.
Vote Placed by Chuz-Life 3 years ago
Chuz-Life
16kadamsrogueTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: I give Con credit for making convincing arguments only because Pro's counter arguments rely too heavily on denials and dismissive rhetoric. Comments like "Just because something is alive does not make it inherently worth keeping alive. We don't like to keep vegetables alive, or murderers, or certain animals." are very offensive to people who (like myself) have had loved ones in a coma and who were "kept alive" long enough to come back out of their comas. 16Kadams, hang in there. Don't give up the fight. Your arguments are certain to improve over time.
Vote Placed by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
16kadamsrogueTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: I do not think that the instigator adequatley demonstrated that abortion is worse than the alternative.
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
16kadamsrogueTied
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: Though I am far more on the side of pro-lifers Pro made a case out of utility that was not properly addressed by Con, whose arguments were incoherent and often an appeal to emotion.
Vote Placed by XiaoFei98 5 years ago
XiaoFei98
16kadamsrogueTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: I still agree with Con. Yes, the woman can get emotional because of pregnancy, but unless it's rape, they almost asked for it. If you aren't safe and you're irresponsible with your body, then it's the mother's fault. Abortion is $1000. How can that be cheaper? Just give the baby up for adoption. Geez.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
16kadamsrogueTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con got angry and used spicy language when he got angry for no reason. RFD: Pro kept returning Con's serves, even to the point of showing that Con's sources don't support his arguments.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
16kadamsrogueTied
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: This debate could have used much more contentions and summaries to make the arguments clear. Con began with a case that was refuted by Pro, and Con kept changing his arguments to respond but kept getting refuted. Con also failed to address many of the points Pro made without adding anything new. In the end Pros arguments are left standing.
Vote Placed by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
16kadamsrogueTied
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's only argument that really pertained to the debate was "so i think we need a starting point, why not at the beginning?" But he didn't provide any reason to start at the beginning. Not only that, he didn't refute that it was essentially taking away 9 months of a mother's life.
Vote Placed by waylon.fairbanks 5 years ago
waylon.fairbanks
16kadamsrogueTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: While I am usually indifferent to abortion debates, I admired Rogue's careful deconstruction of 12kadam's assertions.