The Instigator
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
32 Points
The Contender
jm_notguilty
Pro (for)
Losing
26 Points

Abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 13 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,895 times Debate No: 19714
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (42)
Votes (13)

 

16kadams

Con

I will be the con side in this debate. The first round is acceptance and opening contentions. No rebutals.

C1: A fetus is a human therefore abortion is murder

This will be explained in detail in my second round when I am actually introducung my full blown case.

C2: It is morrally wrong to kill a person, and society looks down upon that act.

This point can't be contested at all, but this point is dependant on my first contention. So for this to be a good contention I muat prove the first point. So if I prove the first point than this would be an argument for me as well.

C3: Since it is morally wrong to kill a fetus

This contention relys on the first 2 points, 2 for the moral statement, and 1 for a fetus is a human.

C4: Religeon on some cases prohibits abortion

The Roman Catholics are against abortion always, and the protestants are against it most of the time.

C5: More people are pro-life than pro choice as of 2011.

This isnt a big argument, but it is just a thing to consider, it is not a reason to illegilize it, this is just a fun fact that should only hold 1% of this debate, so my opponent could discard it.

My first contention is my main argument as much of my other points rely on that one, so I only need to prove that, then most of my case follows along with it.

I will provide sources and other things in the second round. And more thourogh explanations for each contention.

Remember, first round no rebuttals, just acceptance and a outline for your case. If you break this rule you automatically forfeit. Good luck!

2nd round is when you add on to your case/show proof and begin the rebuttals. This first round is just for statements.

ALso the BOP is on my to prove the above, and on you to prove your contentions.

Hope I explained this well enough, if there are any questions ask me in the comments or in your first round.
jm_notguilty

Pro


Thanks for instigating.

Since this is only for acceptance and a brief review on my contentions, we’ll make this round quick.

But first some definitions relevant to the debate:

Abortion- Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Murder- The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Contentions:

C1: Abortion is NOT murder

Since my opponent’s main case relies on abortion being murder, it will also be my obligation to negate his contention. If I’ve fulfilled this obligation, you must negate the resolution.

In this premise, I will also be arguing that murder can be justified and morally acceptable to society. Not all killings are morally wrong.

I will also attempt to argue that even if abortion ends a life, it’s still morally acceptable, in some circumstances.

C2: Valuing Women’s Rights

I will show that a mother has rights over her body and privacy, and that it is more important to save the mother than the unborn fetus if both lives are at stake.

C3: Abortion happens regardless of legality

I’ll be proving in this premise that illegalizing abortion is a bad idea and a disadvantage to society and may lead to bad consequences and events.

C4: Abortion is a right

For my last contention, I will attempt to finally argue that a woman has a right to abort a child.

I reserve the right to expand, drop and add more contentions whenever necessary to the debate. Thank you.

Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Con

U thabk my opponent fot this debate, I hope he enjoys it. =)

C1: A fetus is a human, therefore it's murder

Since a fetus is a human, it should be considered murder. I will now prove thait a fetus is a human being.

A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:

1. Living things are highly organized.

2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.

3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.

4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.

5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her. [1]


So according to these definitions, a fetus is a human. Killing it would be murder, and it's not justified because its not self-defense. An abortion is only justified in the case to save a mothers life. Life begins at conseption.

Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human. A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg). When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing. Emperically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if its human or not. Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception. [1]


More of the same...

“I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly, I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. Hippocrates, 400 B.C., Greece

Sorry if the enlarged stuff is annoying, but that is from my first source.

C2: It is morally wrong to kill a person, society looks down upon those acts.

This is hard to argue against. A fetus is a person therefore it is murder (or should be considered so). I have proven my point aboveas pf now, that a fetus is a human being. I will expand next round on that point as it will be needed. But this point relates to the one above, a fetus is a human, killing it is murder, and killing is morally wrong. Same old same old.

C3: It is morally wrong to kill a fetus

Well a fetus is a human, and killing unless in self-defense is morally wrong, so it is morally wrong to kill a fetus. This point relys on the 2 above.

C4: Religeon in some cases pohibits abortion.

This is undisputable, but I will add on to it anyway. This point only relys towards christians.

“…and Rebekah his [Isaac’s] wife conceived. And the children struggled together within her…” (Genesis 25:21-22).

Notice that when she conceived, i was called a child. It consideres the zygot a human. This biblical quote is from my seond source as well. Also look at the 10 commandments: "thou shall not kill", or "thou shall not murder", depending on the translation, but that specfically states that murder/killing is wrong, and above calls a zygot a child, so in god's eyes abortion is murder because he agrees with my above conentions.

ALso, Catholics are against abortion, as you know, and many protestants are as well.

So this only applies to christians, abortion is wrong on the lines of our faith.

C5: More people are pro-life than pro-choice as of 2011

This is just a little side argument:

So theres that.

Rebuttals:

"Since my opponent’s main case relies on abortion being murder, it will also be my obligation to negate his contention. If I’ve fulfilled this obligation, you must negate the resolution."

Well I have proven that a fetus is a human, but I will add on to it here, if fetus is a human then it is murder:

Fetuses feel pain during an abortion according to Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center. "If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be severe and excruciating pain."

So above I proved that a fetus is a human, here I prove that it is painful for the baby.

"I will show that a mother has rights over her body and privacy, and that it is more important to save the mother than the unborn fetus if both lives are at stake. "

Well, most women do not want this right:

Most women do not want this right, also lets add on to this rebuttal.

A fetus is a human, therefor it deserves basic human rights, and it should have control over its body. So killing the baby takes away it's freedom, so it's a 50-50 split of freedoms. Although women do not want this freedom, you will still argu that it is essential. So the women loses rights the baby gains them. But since a majority of women do not want these rights, then why should they have them?

"I’ll be proving in this premise that illegalizing abortion is a bad idea and a disadvantage to society and may lead to bad consequences and events."

Tanl you for this argument, I love to attack it. You claim that more abortions wil happen illegally if it is illegal, wrong.

Senator James Buckley stated: "Data from foreign countries having far longer experience with legalised abortion than we have had in the US, suggest that legalisation has no effect on the criminal abortion rate. In at least three countries, the criminal abortion rate has actually risen since legalisation. Legalised abortion moves the back alley abortionists into the front office where their trade can be practised without fear of criminal prosecution." [5]

Dr Christopher Tietze, an abortion advocate, concedes: "Although one of the major goals of the liberalisation of abortion laws in Scandinavia was to reduce the incidence of illegal abortion, this was not accomplished. Rather as we know from a variety of sources, both criminal and total abortions increased." [4]

So look at this, a senator says there is no poof that legilising it redices that number, and a pro choice docor admits that legilising it increases the back street abortions. So I have proven that when its illegal there is less of both types of abortion.

"For my last contention, I will attempt to finally argue that a woman has a right to abort a child."

This is a vauge point. I will not refute it...yet. So please expand then I'll attepmt to refute it.

I await your response. :)

Sorry if my spellings bad, the spell check has an internal error.

Sources:

http://prolifephysicians.org... [1]

http://www.christiananswers.net... [2]

http://www.gallup.com... [3]

Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center.

93rd Congress of the US [4]

Dr Christopher Tietze [5]




jm_notguilty

Pro

Thank you again 16K for instigating and posting your arguments. I’d like to point out that I’m neither for nor against Abortion, I have neutral opinions on this matter making me undecided. But this’ll be fun to debate. Good luck.

REBUTTAL

Fetus = Human, killing them is murder

The only relevant argument opponent has given here is that a fetus has a ‘life’, but that doesn’t make it a sentient, conscious, viable, fully-grown human being. The fetus may be a member of the Homo sapiens, but they are not fully resembled human beings who are sentient and with rights. They are not natural-born citizens, they cannot be dependent on their own body and they need the woman’s body to live, if we let the fetus’ moral rights override the mother’s, then this is close to invading the woman’s privacy and the right of the woman to choose.

My opponent claims that life begins at fertilization, which is wrong. In fact, life begins before fertilization. Sperm and egg cells are actually living things. But the question should not be when life begins, rather, it should be when must we consider that the fetus be sentient or actually feel anything.

Here’s a report published by Joyce Arthur entitled: “Personhood: Is a Fetus a Human Being?” {1}, according to her research, it showed that Fetuses are uniquely different from actual humans, and the most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. Anyone can take care of a newborn infant, but onlypregnant women can nurture their fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it. Also, she said that fetuses don’t just depend on the woman for survival, but it needs to be insidethe woman’s body for it to live. She states that human beings must be separate individuals.

So this very much refutes the idea that fetuses should be prioritized more because they can take care by themselves, which is false.

Moving on, here’s a brief conclusion on opponent’s case:

P1: Abortion ends the life of the fetus.

P2: a fetus is a human being.

C: Therefore, abortion is murder.

This is false, so now (and this is important) to say actually affirm those contentions and say that abortion is murder, 16K needs to show and accurately prove that 1) a fetus is a human being, and 2) All abortions are the unlawful killing of a human being with premeditation and malice aforethought.

But technically, abortion is legal in the US (state and federal) since Roe v. Wade, so somewhat negates 2). So this means that abortion is (or somewhat) actually the opposite of murder, it is lawful, it is (sometimes) unintentional and it is without premeditation and without malice.

Morally wrong to kill a person and society opposes such act

This premise fails on so many ways, look at the following scenarios and tell me that these aren’t morally wrong and society opposes such acts:

- Self Defense/ Defense of others - It is considered morally permissible to kill a killer to save your own life or kill a person to protect loved ones and others?

- Kill one, save many- It is morally acceptable to kill the terrorists before 9/11 which affected upcoming the Afghan/Iraq war?

- Parasitic twin scenario- We have a conjoined twins, and it only survives if we sacrifice one, so would it be considered moral to kill a weaker twin to save the stronger one? No surgery means both twins die.

- Trolley Problem- Let’s say you are in a moving trolley and your mother is tied to the tracks a few meters from you, you’re about to hit her. Although, there’s another way, but there are 5 people tied to the tracks in that direction. Now you have to choose between killing your mom and killing 5 people. What should you do?

If my opponent still argues that these acts are all morally wrong, he’s either lying or is out of his mind. Either way, his premise fails and these scenarios are justified morally under utilitarian view and deontological theory.

Morally wrong to kill a fetus

Similar to my opponent’s 2nd premise.

Religion on abortion

This is somewhat irrelevant to the debate, since Religion has no say on Abortion laws. My opponent’s verse has no connection to abortion whatsoever. And quoting the Ten Commandments doesn’t help him too, since the Bible is contradictory, like Hosea 9:13-16, where God said that children will be dashed in pieces and that pregnant women will be ripped open. Numbers 31:17 states that adulterous women should be killed, because they bear a child that they got from premarital sex. Also Psalms 137:9 which states that God will bless shall the ones who dash little kids with rocks.

PRO-life > PRO-choice

My opponent admitted that this is irrelevant and we should just discard it, I agree, but even if we didn’t, this graph is unreliable and inaccurate since it has no source whatsoever and that it didn’t show how many people were interviews. My opponent could’ve just made this statistic by interviewing 10 people and the majority are PRO-lifers.

CASE

C1: Abortion is NOT murder

I’ve fulfilled my obligation to negate this premise. See my rebuttals above for review.

I also mentioned that even if abortion ends a life, it’s still morally acceptable, in some circumstances, like issues of maternal health and risks, rape, incest and poverty. Surely we don’t want to abuse people’s choices to protect themselves especially if their lives are at stake.

C2: Valuing Women’s Rights

My opponent didn’t really rebut this premise, he just put up a graph/statistic that have no sources and didn’t explain it, please ignore them. And even if the chart is accurate, it just shows more PRO-lifers than PRO-choicers, they don’t necessarily oppose their right to abort.

See contention 4 for my extension to this.

C3: Abortion happens regardless of legality

My opponent’s rebuttal here are hearsay testimonies instead of providing accurate statistics, not to mention the testimonies had no sources to back it up. So we could discard them for lack of accuracy and evidence, making them invalid.

As I said, illegalizing abortion is a disadvantage and may lead to bad outcomes. Because you see, crime rates were reduced after Roe v. Wade, if we overturn that SC decision, then we would be undermining our constitution and that ‘back alley’ or illegal abortions will rise. This is a dangerous risk to take for a mother wanting an illegal abortion since the risks are very much higher than an abortion made by a professional.

There was a study conducted by John Donohue and Steven Levitt entitled, "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime" {2}. They showed that after Roe v. Wade, crime rates reduced and fell roughly after 18 years of the decision. States with high abortion rates after Roe experienced a huge drop in crime in the 90s. They state that when abortion was fully legalized, it accounted for much as 50% of the recent decline in crime rates.

In El Salvador {3}, abortion is illegal and is punishable up to 25 years but yet more and more people commit ‘back alley’ abortion, and these rates are rising. The UN has urged this country to pass an abortion law so the crime rates may fall, but it’s still pending. {4}

C4: Abortion is a right

I’ll make a few points to support my claim and since I’m running out of characters, and since the only topic that matters here is if abortion is murder.

Now, after Roe v. Wade, America has become a symbol for promoting rights, women’s rights, the right to choose and right to privacy. It’s an important and a valuable right since a fetus is technically invading the woman’s body and it depends on the body to survive, which is a risk. If we give rights to unborn fetuses, it would be like taking off the mother’s rights and women will lose control over their body. The life of the mother is more valuable than the fetus.

If I may ask, if women can’t be trusted with their choice to abort, how can we trust them with children?

I await my opponent’s response, and hopefully use proper sentencing structure and grammar and not rely on c/p testimony. Thank you and good luck.

CITATIONS

Comments.

Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Con

The only relevant argument opponent has given here is that a fetus has a ‘life’, but that doesn’t make it a sentient, conscious, viable, fully-grown human being.

Ok, a few flaws. You say that since a fetus isn't fully grown that it is not a human, well I'm growing am I not human? Your growing, but your a human, people are constantly changing, so if we use the ever changing argument that no one is a human. So you mus tbelive no ne is a human, because were all changing as we speak. So this argument makesno sense. Also I have other relavant arguments, his is the main one.
"To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence." The "Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune, Univ. of Descarte, Paris

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic

Still, doctors and scientsts agree with me, a fetus is a human from conseption on.

Abortion results in the death of an innocent human being. It is immoral and unjust when evaluated in the light of the law of the land (our founding documents) and the divine commandment that forbids taking the life of an innocent human being (Exodus 20:13). [1]

"My opponent claims that life begins at fertilization, which is wrong. In fact, life begins before fertilization. Sperm and egg cells are actually living things. But the question should not be when life begins, rather, it should be when must we consider that the fetus be sentient or actually feel anything."

Yes life begins before fertilization, but a single joind life is made directly after it. So before it they are 2 seperate organizms, and when they join they bcome one. Sorry that I didn't clarify earlier. And it can feel things, I belive I posted a study above. But 'll show another example:

At this point, it is uncertain whether a fetus experiences pain during the first trimester of development, when most abortions occur. However, recent studies have shown that the fetus most certainly does feel pain by the end the second trimester, when late-term and partial birth abortions are performed. Since general anesthesia is not used in most of these procedures, the fetus most likely feels pain during the procedure as limbs may be pulled off and scissors are used to puncture the base of its skull. [2]

So it is certian that they feel pain by the 2nd or 3rd trimester, the first one has studies proving both. So a fetus does feel pain, but how much is the real question.







"Here’s a report published by Joyce Arthur entitled: “Personhood: Is a Fetus a Human Being?” {1}, according to her research, it showed that Fetuses are uniquely different from actual humans, and the most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive."

This is another fallacy, when you where a newborn you where dependant on your parents, yet you consider newborns to be humans. Pets are deoendant on their 'masters', and they get certian rights to life, and non abuse. So many things are depanant on an outside source, and get rights, so why don't fetuses.

Before refuting, I will skip a few of your points, and address them later.


"This premise fails on so many ways, look at the following scenarios and tell me that these aren’t morally wrong and society opposes such acts:

-Self Defense/ Defense of others - It is considered morally permissible to kill a killer to save your own life or kill a person to protect loved ones and others?"


Yes, but killing a fetus isn't in self defense unless the fetus is going to kill you, if you will dieu have the child by all means abort it, that is defense, but most abortions dont fall into this category. So, this point is a bad one.

Kill one, save many- It is morally acceptable to kill the terrorists before 9/11 which affected upcoming the Afghan/Iraq war?



Wellyou kill a fetus you aren't saving anyone. (unless your is in danger), so this point doesnt relate.

"Parasitic twin scenario- We have a conjoined twins, and it only survives if we sacrifice one, so would it be considered moral to kill a weaker twin to save the stronger one? No surgery means both twins die. "

Yes that moral, abortion is bad unless you are saving yourself, or nother baby. So in that senerio we agree.

Trolley Problem- Let’s say you are in a moving trolley and your mother is tied to the tracks a few meters from you, you’re about to hit her. Although, there’s another way, but there are 5 people tied to the tracks in that direction. Now you have to choose between killing your mom and killing 5 people. What should you do?

Well when in abortions do you threatan to kill 5 people? SO irrelavant. Only one of these has related. SO all of your case ispotheticals that you never face during abortion. So what is th epoint of this?

"This is somewhat irrelevant to the debate, since Religion has no say on Abortion laws."

I am a cahtolic, and we are against abortion. Most protestants are against abortion as well. The reason were against it is actually the thou shall not murder, and the bible says life begins at conception. Those dont say it directly, but those points relate to the topic, sicne we belive that a fetus is a human than we dont kill a fetus because it is against the 10 commandments. So relegion does have a say. http://www.godandscience.org...

"My opponent admitted that this is irrelevant and we should just discard it, I agree, but even if we didn’t, this graph is unreliable and inaccurate since it has no source whatsoever and that it didn’t show how many people were interviews."

It had a source, it was the only polling source, gallup polls. Look there if you dont belive me. And the graph on it showed gallup in a light font. It is credible, and from a reliable source. In america majority rules, a goverment by the people for the people, thats why I showed it. Since we are that then we should change the laws if it stays that way.

Ok, now I will prove that a fetus is a human again, and that it is murder.

I am running low on space, this proves that fets is a human with medical technology: http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu...

It is murder:

Many countries make abortion illega, and it is murder there. Your definition is exact. But people know what I mean. Killing a fetus should be illegal because it is ending a humn life on purpose, so your being technical, yet you know what I mean. A fetus is a person, and killing it is wrong.

You have droped the backstreet abortion case.

You really havent defended your case...at all. You have tried to kill mine, but it seems as though you offered no facts while doing so.


DO you know what a hippocratic oath is? Its a oath ALL doctors take and they promise never to end, or hurt a human life. Well a fetus is definatly human, and everytime a doctor kills one he is breaking his oath. So by all technicallities doctors shouldn't be able to do abortions as it breaks their promises to humanity. http://en.wikipedia.org...

I wish you god luck, vote CON! (I used your font to be consitstant).



sources:
http://www.prolifephysicians.org... [1]

http://www.godandscience.org... [2]
jm_notguilty

Pro

Thanks 16K for your response.

It’s sad to see that my opponent hasn’t adequately refuted some of my points in his last round. And since this is the last round, I’ll make this brief.

REBUTTAL

RE: Fetus = Human

My opponent must be confused here. I’ve already explained the difference between a fetus and a fully grown sentient human being. And by ‘fully grown’ shouldn’t mean an adult, but it should refer to a human who can be dependent on one’s body, it should be capable to feel and think freely. A fetus doesn’t do any of these. My opponent hasn’t proven that the fetus has done any of this, he just argued that it ‘has’ life, which is very much insufficient to affirm his case. Furthermore, my opponent goes on and relies on hearsay testimony without really supporting it. He quoted something from a scripture that states that an abortion is murdering an innocent person, making a fetus a fully-grown human, this testimony should be considered null and void because I’ve already disproved it.

CON also gives a link on medical evidence of fetus being human, he just gave a link and didn’t type an argument. Please discard them.

RE: Abortion is murder

My opponent states that abortion is illegal in some countries thus making it murder. But hasn’t offered proof on which country bans abortion and if it defines fetuses as a sentient human. So his argument fails here.

Also, we shouldn’t be sidetracked here since this debate is about abortion in the US. It’s clear from the start.

RE: Fetus feels pain

My opponent lately claims that a fetus can feel pain, but that study only supports fetal pain during the end of the second trimester (28th week/7th month) of pregnancy. Now, this can be relevant if we’re arguing partial birth abortion, but we’re not, so we could disregard it. Also, even if a fetus can feel pain, it’s still not fully-grown or sentient. It is still a risk to the mother. My opponent failed to expand this contention.

RE: Fetus dependent on mother

CON’s logic fails here. He compares a fetus to a newborn infant. A fetus’ rights are still a developing right whereas children’s rights already exist. Fetuses aren’t natural-born citizens yet, but an infant is. An infant can survive without its mother (e.g.: nursing care, adoption centers), a fetus cannot survive without the mother because it’s still in the mother’s womb, so the life of the fetus is dependent on the mother.

RE: Religion and Abortion

Last time I checked, the US is a secular country and that the separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.

My opponent has dropped my argument concerning the Bible’s contradiction on itself. He just repeated his argument. So please extend.

RE: Abortion Polls: PRO-life vs. PRO-choice

CON failed to give a website, and that site has tons of polls, I’m not obligated to go through a pile of polls just to negate the fact that it’s reliable. It’s CON’s fault for not backing it up. Also, he didn’t respond as to how many were interviewed, probably only 10 biased people were interviewed, which is false.

Ergo, this premise has already been disproved for lack of accuracy and its lack or relevancy.

RE: Hippocratic Oath

Again, I’ve proven that the fetus shouldn’t be considered human and that abortion can be justified. This oath wasn’t introduced adequately with sufficient evidence, so there’s nothing really to refute.

DEFENSE

Killing justified on certain circumstances

My opponent evades these hypothetical scenarios by comparing it to a fetus being aborted, which isn’t entirely the point. This premise is solely to negate that killing is always wrong, which is false.

But nevertheless, my opponent negates his own contention by saying ‘unless you are in danger, except in health risks, etc, etc’

---

And… that’s it. Nothing to defend really, since my opponent failed to address my contentions, which is a disappointment. Which leads us to my the conclusion.

CONCLUSION

Okay, so by now you will realize that my opponent has failed to satisfy his burden of proof. He needed to show that:

1) A fetus is a human being, and

2) All abortions are the unlawful killing of a human being with premeditation and malice aforethought.

My opponent didn’t give adequate and enough evidence to sufficiently prove a fetus is human and he made no argument that abortion is the premeditated killing of a human. He has also failed to refute all my arguments and he has failed to back up his claims.

I urge you voters to vote PRO. Thanks. And for my exit, I present you a picture that shows abortion is a choice, a right of the woman and it shouldn't be taken away.


Debate Round No. 3
42 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
It is the womans fault. Abortion is wrong because if the woman did not want the baby, she should not have gotten pregnant in the first place, so abortion is wrong. (With an exception of rape.)
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
he does that a lot. I am fine with his vote, it explains his views
Posted by jm_notguilty 4 years ago
jm_notguilty
@logic:

So you tied this up because no arguments/sources were enough? Not that I'm complaining but why vote if your just gonna comment on the evidence introduced and not bother looking at the arguments made. And obscure or not, it's still valid, and I could've explain it more thoroughly if it was challenged.
Posted by jm_notguilty 4 years ago
jm_notguilty
I'll debate you on that contention if you want, but society looking down on self defense, etc? I don't think so.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
it is true though, society looks down upon it too. ALso some of your claims fit into that definition. I will not respond any longer, let the voters decide.
Posted by jm_notguilty 4 years ago
jm_notguilty
It doesn't matter, because you made an outlandish claim: "It is morally wrong to kill a person, and society looks down upon that act."

The only way to disprove that was to focus on scenarios where killing a person is not morally wrong. You first made the contention, you knew it would be misleading.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
yes but your examples never relate to abortion, so you made a red herring
Posted by jm_notguilty 4 years ago
jm_notguilty
The point was to negate the 'killing a human is never morally acceptable/justified' premise which you argued in your C2.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
so killing in self defense is relavant to abortion, I think not.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
It was clear that you didn't see the relevance.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Chuz-Life 4 years ago
Chuz-Life
16kadamsjm_notguiltyTied
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 subject of this debate is abortion. Specifically, it's a debate about whether an abortion is a murder or not. Con does a reasonable job of stating the obvious (abortion kills children and children have rights that are being denied) Pro does an equally reasonably good job denying the personhood and other aspects of the unborn that Con has asserted. In the end, an abortion is a murder in as much as the laws which allow it to take place are themselves unjust.
Vote Placed by logicrules 4 years ago
logicrules
16kadamsjm_notguiltyTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never established that a fetus was, incontrovertibly, a human. Con invoked religion, and some religions permit abortion. Pro cited an obscure article, unknown as to peer review, but unscientific as to method used.
Vote Placed by CAPLlock 4 years ago
CAPLlock
16kadamsjm_notguiltyTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter vote contras poor RFD
Vote Placed by Contra 4 years ago
Contra
16kadamsjm_notguiltyTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't mention that the poll was over 2 years old
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
16kadamsjm_notguiltyTied
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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by cameronl35 4 years ago
cameronl35
16kadamsjm_notguiltyTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Boogerdoctor's ridiculous vote
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 4 years ago
Lordknukle
16kadamsjm_notguiltyTied
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: Same as Jimmytimmy
Vote Placed by OberHerr 4 years ago
OberHerr
16kadamsjm_notguiltyTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter vote bomb Leol.
Vote Placed by Boogerdoctor 4 years ago
Boogerdoctor
16kadamsjm_notguiltyTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was not a good one at all. 16kadams proved that a fetus/embryo is living but not that it's a "human." But I guess there aren't any good argument for pro-life. There are just a bunch of idiots on that side.
Vote Placed by PartamRuhem 4 years ago
PartamRuhem
16kadamsjm_notguiltyTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: countering history genius. Total bogus RFD