The Instigator
Caseo7
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheRealGod
Pro (for)
Tied
0 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2016 Category: People
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 362 times Debate No: 84492
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Caseo7

Con

I wish whoever I vs good luck .I hope wish you luck.ok let's get on topic here so Abortion I believe abortion is murder and kills innocent babies in there mothers womb.If i can have Abortion than I can shoot someone with a Gun if I can have a choice between life and death pull the trigger or don't that should not be a option. The mother and father need to discuss on whether or not to have kids.
TheRealGod

Pro

I accept because abortion is not murder. I would know I designed it. And it is completely different than taking a gun and shooting a human who has a character, and an embryo is just a bunch of cells coming together. If abortion is murder, swalloing(you fella know what I mean) is cannibalism. Each sperm has a chance of becoming a baby.
Debate Round No. 1
Caseo7

Con

Abortion is murder because you take a life away from a baby.Abortion is cruel but I think it can only be used if something is wrong inside the womb.
TheRealGod

Pro

A fetus, is not a baby, especially at the early stages, the brain has yet to develop, so how are you taking away a life when it never existed in the first place? By your definition. It should be illegal to ejaculate anywhere besides a vagina because you are taking away the life from a baby. What if your mom swallowed you instead? Would you be alive today?

Also as a source myself, the one true God creator of all

http://www.mayoclinic.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Caseo7

Con

Abortion still takes away Babies that are close to birth.it is taking a soul a soul that was about to come to this earth a life. Snatched away from Earth.
TheRealGod

Pro

Abortions don't take away babies close to birth, abortions are usually performed early because it's safer for the mother than opposed to later. Also you mention a soul, what is a soul? Do they exist? You have to prove that a soul exist before you can we are taking it away. There is no scientific data that souls exist.
Debate Round No. 3
Caseo7

Con

It still takes away a baby a life think about it.
TheRealGod

Pro

You failed to address how it takes away a babies life. When a fetus is not yet a baby, therefore how do you take something away which was never given? So I will conclude that a fetus is a parasyte stealing the nutrients of its host so that it may grow.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Cooldudebro// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (S&G, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: RFD: Conduct: No one really did anything there. S/G: Although there were numerous grammatical mistakes, Pro made less mistakes than Con. Sources: Pro was the only one to give a source. Winner: Pro Con could've argued a lot better than shown in the debate. Although it was sub-par on both accounts, the clear winner is Pro.

[*Reason for removal] (1) S&G: the presence of grammatical mistakes doesn't warrant this point allocation. The voter has to have a difficult time reading the arguments of one side, otherwise this point cannot be awarded. (2) Sources: one side using more sources is not sufficient for awarding these points. The voter has to explain how the sources presented by Pro contributed to the debate in order to award these. (3) Arguments: The voter needs to point to specific arguments made in the debate. Without doing that, this RFD could be posted on any debate and mean exactly the same thing.
************************************************************************
Posted by TheRealGod 11 months ago
TheRealGod
Sorry I meant @skipsweirdo
Posted by TheRealGod 11 months ago
TheRealGod
I guess you don't need sperm to fertilize an egg. Everybody you hear that @2cents just clarified take off the condoms folks because sperm has 0 chance of becoming a fetus
Posted by skipsaweirdo 11 months ago
skipsaweirdo
2cents4change
Umm, sperm has absolutely no chance of becoming a human. You take basic biology? Sperm doesn't become anything but a fuse, that's like saying a fuse without dynamite has a chance of becoming dynamite.
"A mass of living cells", as opposed to you, you're not a mass of living cells.......bwhahahaha
Cancer cells main goal is to divide into other cancer cells. The growth of a cell isn't the goal as it stops growing. Cancer cells don't stop growing, in cell terms that means dividing. Cancer cells ignore signals from other cells also, fetal cells do not. The goal of a cell is division and the passing of DNA to another cell. Cancer cells typically do not have an "off" button like normal cells, say those that form a finger. After the finger is formed the cells communicate no more cells are needed to "grow" the finger. Instead they become merely cells that replace ones that die. Or in the case of a paper cut. Its to heal, they then know when not to keep dividing. Your analogy between fetal cells and cancer cells is completely wrong. There is a distinct difference. Read some biology.
Posted by 2cents4change 11 months ago
2cents4change
HAHA i like that swallowing sperm is cannibalism. I agree that until consciences is achieved, about 21-24 weeks proven , it is technically and medically just a mass of living cells, same as a tumor, since an explosive growth from a single cell into billions in a short amount of time and sustained only by its host is pretty much describing a cancer cell to a T as its main focus is to continue growing. Pro life advocates can not swallow their own kook-aid since they don't crusade against doctors performing cancer treatments.
No votes have been placed for this debate.