The Instigator
Rob1Billion
Pro (for)
Winning
37 Points
The Contender
Aziar44
Con (against)
Losing
19 Points

Abortion

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
Pro Tied Con
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: 4/29/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,563 times Debate No: 8032
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (9)

 

Rob1Billion

Pro

I will argue that abortion should never be illegal, and that pro-lifers use seriously flawed, illogical arguments to support pro-life views.

Contention 1: Life is not sacred
Contention 2: Human life does not start at conception
Contention 3: A fetus is not a person

I will basically forfeit the rest of round one and be limited to rounds two and three to make my points. Happy arguing!
Aziar44

Con

Hello, and thank you for posting this debate. Should be good I hope.

My opponent has set up the parameters of this debate, and he is trying to prove to you that abortion should never be illegal. If I can convince you that abortion should be illegal in ANY case ever, I win. These are the parameters that my opponent has set up. As abortion is illegal in some cases currently, my opponent does have the burden of proof.

My arguments for why abortion should be illegal in some cases are as follows:

1. Abortion should be illegal after the second trimester. If you have no idea that you're pregnant after six months? I mean, honestly, you should know by then. If in the first six months you want to have an abortion, fine. You may be surprised by the fact that you're pregnant. But after six months, the baby can feel pain and is much more human in a biological sense. To abort at that point (26 weeks) is to cause pain to a human child, and you should have made the realization and decision far before 6 months into the pregnancy. (http://discovermagazine.com...)

2. I would be interested to hear your contention that life is not sacred. Does that mean it would be okay to kill a newborn baby as well? Just curious. As to your third contention, why is a fetus not a person at say, 35 weeks? Is it okay to abort at 35 weeks? The medical definition of a fetus is the unborn offspring from the 8th week after conception to birth (http://www.medterms.com...). Therefore, you must believe it is okay to abort up until birth? I believe you must explain the difference between a 38 week-old fetus and a just-born infant. What you are proposing sounds much like infanticide. There are few differences between a fetus that is that old and a newborn. You must justify your opinion here. (http://www.leaderu.com...)

These are just my opening arguments and I await your retort. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Rob1Billion

Pro

Contention 1: life is not sacred. Con really didn't say too much about this, other than saying that I must think killing newborn babys is OK. Even though I don't believe my point was adequately contested, I will continue defending it in hopes it is addressed better next round. Life is not sacred. We kill germs constantly, we kill animals for fun, we even kill people if they don't follow the laws. This is all life.

Contention 2: Human life does not begin at conception. Con did not address this point at all. I will assume con concedes this point. If human life does not begin at conception then a pro-life argument is hard to make, of course...

Contention 3: A fetus is not a person. Con spent the vast majority of the round addressing this point, and introduces a new contention "Abortion should be illegal after the second trimester" which I will lump together here. He quotes Discover Magazine, and claims that "after six months, the baby can feel pain" but apparently does not bother to read the article quoted. Only two paragraphs in, it states "...physicians... tell women that 20-week-old fetuses can feel pain during the procedure unless they are anesthetized. A newly released review of the scientific evidence, however, suggests the premise of those laws is wrong." The article continues on to further defend this premise. This is a fatal mistake, Con.

What makes you a person? Reaction to stimuli? Brain activity? A beating Heart? None of these. These traits make you ALIVE which is dealt with in contention 1. Personhood includes your personality, experiences, relationships with other people, your abilities, and your sins. Every person has made faults. A fetus has not. When a baby is born, and the mother accepts responsibility for raising it, it's very first personal relationship is formed (beforehand it is part of the mother's body). It sins (cries, disobeys), gains experience, forms a personality, and becomes a person. This is the difference you asked me for.
Aziar44

Con

On your contention that life is not sacred: What exactly does this have to do with abortion? I use life being valuable in terms of not killing a human being, I guess. Would you be in favor of killing innocent people because life is not sacred?

On your contention that human life does not begin at conception: It is not that hard to make an argument for having abortion illegal in at least ONE case without this point. Abortion should be illegal at 38 weeks. Anyone who is convinced by this statement should vote CON. That has nothing to do with life beginning at conception, but of life being existent/valued at 38 weeks.

On your contention that a fetus is not a person: A fatal mistake, this is not. In fact, the mistake is on your part. I would ask people to read the article for themselves.

The article states that the fetus can feel pain in the 28th week - two weeks into the third trimester. Even pro-abortion groups have said 26 weeks is the time when a fetus can feel pain. Look at this article: Control F "26" and it is near the bottom: (http://www.theinterim.com...)

"However, others in the pro-abortion camp continue to argue that, for example, pain cannot be felt before 26 weeks' gestation."

Therefore, no mistake was made on my part; you simply did not properly read the article and only looked at the first paragraph. Please, no more false accusations of faulty reading and "fatal mistakes."

" When a baby is born, and the mother accepts responsibility for raising it, it's very first personal relationship is formed (beforehand it is part of the mother's body)."

- This makes it a human, you say. If the personal relationship is only formed after birth, why do parents name their children in the womb? Care about said child in the womb? Just because it cannot physically be touched, it is not human?

Just to make this clear: You are in favor of aborting a 38 week old baby/fetus? You think that should be legal?
Debate Round No. 2
Rob1Billion

Pro

You put a link up that clearly contradicts the very point you are trying to make, then you post a completely different link and say I didn't read it correctly and to check it again. Instead of one fatal error, you have now made two. Instead of admitting your mistake and continuing on, you have now turned a citation error into a conduct abuse by trying to coerce the voters into thinking you had posted a different link.

Contention1/3: life is not sacred. You are twisting my words. I clearly made the distinction between "person" and "life" earlier. For you to say that I must think killing people is OK is pure negligence on your point. The relevance of this point is that pro-lifers use the fact that life is sacred to defend making abortion illegal. I am pointing out this fallacy.

Contention 2: life does not begin at conception. Con is now relying on the 38 weeks argument completely to win his case, so we will switch gears here. In another twist of words, Con says I am "in favor of" aborting a 38 week old fetus. I never said this; I simply do not believe abortion should be banned at any time. Doctors can choose not to abort later on, but there is no point in making it illegal. Where would we draw the line? At the "pain" point? This is very fuzzy, controversial, and irrelevant. Many animals feel pain and there is no ban on killing them. There is no evidence of pain in abortion. Your NEW citation is a clearly biased, non-peer reviewed, non-primary source. You would get graded down in college for using that in an upper level course. I fail to see the relevance of naming a child before it is born. I know people who name their cell phones.

I have answered Con's points thoroughly and systematically, and have refuted them successfully each time. On the other hand, Con has ignored my points completely in rounds, twisted my words at times, posted links that contradict himself, used clear coercion, and constantly misunderstood my very clear arguments. My contentions stand
Aziar44

Con

I feel you are being both unjustly harsh and accusatory. It is frustrating you keep trying to point out a mistake where one does not in fact exist.

"Fetuses cannot feel pain until at least the 28th week of gestation because they haven't formed the necessary nerve pathways, says Mark Rosen, an obstetrical anesthesiologist at the University of California at San Francisco."

This is a quote from the first link I put up. There is no contradiction. My contention was that the third trimester should be off limits to abortion. I said that pain can be felt at the start of the third trimester. There is an article that substantiates my claims. Here is another that says basically the same thing. The fetus can feel pain in the third trimester. ( http://jama.ama-assn.org...). It is scholarly.

We do not wish to cause another human being pain, and it can feel pain. Therefore, abortion should not be legal at that time.

2. Your 'life isn't sacred' argument simply confused me. No need to be upset.

The 38 weeks argument is valid. If I can convince voters that aborting a 38 week old fetus should be illegal, I have won.

What is the real difference between a 38-week old fetus and a newly born baby? Nothing biologically. They both feel pain. They look remarkably alike. I give a much better point at which to call a fetus a human. The "pain point" in the third trimester is a much more logical place to call a fetus a human than to say babies are not babies until birth. At least there is a scientific and biological distinction instead of an inside/outside argument.

My opponent is in favor of legalized abortion for 38-week old fetuses. Many babies are BORN at 38 weeks. His view that abortion should be legal up until birth is extreme, but that is his stated stance.

If you are convinced that abortion should be illegal at 38 weeks then by definition of the argument, you should vote CON.

Thank you very much.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rob1Billion 5 years ago
Rob1Billion
this one is going back and forth
Posted by Aziar44 5 years ago
Aziar44
Thank you as well. You can tell it was especially good with such close voting!
Posted by Rob1Billion 5 years ago
Rob1Billion
Thank you for a good debate aziar.
Posted by Rob1Billion 5 years ago
Rob1Billion
Sources: this is my first debate since the old style format where there were no need for them. I wasn't even aware you could lose points for not posting them! It's a god exercise to use them, I suppose, so I definitely will get in the habit.
Posted by Aziar44 5 years ago
Aziar44
All 7 points to my opponent? Come now, you may have agreed with many of their arguments, as they were well done, but Spelling and Grammar was equal. I can see no reason why S&G would not be a tie. Also, sources can hardly go to a side without sources...

I gave spelling and grammar a Tie vote, which seems quite fair. Vote how you please, of course; I am simply pointing out the facts. Thank you.
Posted by Kleptin 5 years ago
Kleptin
That might have made a difference :O I didn't see you explicitly argue that point, that would have helped. Although, it would still be up the the audience, PRO did note that the actual birthing has a huge effect on bonding, and it does down to the chemical level.
Posted by Aziar44 5 years ago
Aziar44
I only wish that my opponent and I could have had more rounds. Would've been fun. A good debate though. Personality determing humanity is indeed an interesting point. I tried to hammer the point home that a newly born baby has as much personality as a fetus that is one week from being born, though.

Still, my opponent had good arguments. I have never done a 2000 word-limited debate, either. It was a nice challenge. Thank you to my opponent and to anyone viewing/voting on this debate.
Posted by Kleptin 5 years ago
Kleptin
Great debate

C: Conduct was good on both sides, TIE.

S&G: No differences in S&G, TIE.

A: Astounding job on the part of PRO. The arguments were compacted and delivered in a way I have never seen before, as if he compressed 20 arguments on abortion together. PRO's counterpoints hit totally on the money each time, and they hit hard. CON did a great job as well, but his arguments lacked the concentrated power of PRO's. The most impressive argument was the "personality determines humanity" argument, which retained its strength even after CON's final post, especially because CON's "pain" argument seemed much weaker in comparison. Excellent job, points go to PRO.

S: CON was the only one to provide sources. Points go to CON.
Posted by Rob1Billion 5 years ago
Rob1Billion
it is limiting, but succinctness is a virtue and honestly most of the debates on this site are way too long winded and I never have time to read them all. I love the fact that we can keep them succinct now.
Posted by Aziar44 5 years ago
Aziar44
I never realized how few characters 2000 is! I will go more in-depth in my last argument in the final round, as I hadn't enough room for it in Round 2.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Rob1Billion 5 years ago
Rob1Billion
Rob1BillionAziar44Tied
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 
Vote Placed by sershawn44 5 years ago
sershawn44
Rob1BillionAziar44Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Aziar44 5 years ago
Aziar44
Rob1BillionAziar44Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Marvel 5 years ago
Marvel
Rob1BillionAziar44Tied
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 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 5 years ago
rougeagent21
Rob1BillionAziar44Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Charlie_Danger 5 years ago
Charlie_Danger
Rob1BillionAziar44Tied
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:32 
Vote Placed by rofflewoffles 5 years ago
rofflewoffles
Rob1BillionAziar44Tied
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 
Vote Placed by zach12 5 years ago
zach12
Rob1BillionAziar44Tied
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:32 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 5 years ago
Kleptin
Rob1BillionAziar44Tied
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:32