The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)


Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
debater1919 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/25/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 215 times Debate No: 94968
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Look, I know that a lot of religious people are going to say; "because the Lord said so", but how do you know that, what I primarily question is how humans can know all of this "spiritual" knowledge but only the church can have it?
If a girl or woman did a little mistake of not using any condoms, or if she got raped, the Lord did not help her in those times, he had to just watch until she got the abortion and she is in the wrong.
A woman"s vagina is she"s, not yours, not theirs and most importantly not the church"s she decides what happens to her, and if a god really exists it wouldn"t tell people like the church to kill her over HER mistake.


Not everyone in America is religious so let's take religion out of it. To say that getting pregnant, with no plan in place to prevent that is a "little mistake" is absolutely ludicrous. Secondly there are no reasonable people going around saying that if someone chooses to have an abortion then they should be killed, I have no idea where that comes from.
Now to the real point of the issue, is abortion okay? The answer to this should be very simple and I am not sure why it is such a big question. Killing another human being is illegal, and it is immoral regardless of whether you are religious or not. In what world is it okay to kill another human? An unborn child is not just a nuisance that you should be allowed to kill off at your convenience. Any scientist will tell you a single cell is proof of life, why does this for some reason apply to everything other than humans to the left?
Debate Round No. 1


With your first statement, I must say that you don"t have to look to far a lot of the con people say that the women should be killed by this "horrible decision". And yes killing is totally wrong, but if the women is raped it"s obvious that there needs an abortion, also if the family it"s not economicaly all right then, they should either abort or put to adoption, which they do the second one most of the time. Yeah, if the parents are financialy above but they did not planned it, they should take responsability or abort which I"m ok with either, and yes I know that sounds "hypocritical" but let"s think about certain factors about how abortion could help.

1: If the baby is deformed (it cannot work propertly) or is diagnosed with a horrible disease, the parents should prevent the pain and abort before the fetus comes to the world.

2: The Economic position is essential, if the parents or mother are/is poor they should either put on adoption or abort.

3:(This is a more personal opinion). The over-population is a big factor for which I believe that abortion is a good way to stop the world from ending a lot faster.

But look, it is my opinion and if you get angry with tell me why and we will talk like civilized people.


I will respond to your numbered points with my own correlating numbers.

1. If a born child has a disease we do not just kill it, it should be the same with an unborn child. An unborn child is still a living human being and deserves a chance in this world no matter what obstacles they may have to overcome.

2. To kill abort a baby on the basis of finances is one of the most immoral things you can do. You are saying you value your money more than your own child's life and I just can't wrap my head around that. You wouldn't just kill a two year old because you were sick of paying for it so why should you kill this baby for the same reasons? I have no problem with adoption and in these cases more often than not it is the best option.

3. Over population in the United States is not a factor, the latest population growth figures show an increase of 0.71% the lowest since 1937. If we ever get to the point where we need to kill babies in fear of overpopulation then we have failed as a society.
Debate Round No. 2


You believe that in my second argument I meant that I prefer the money, no I don"t, what I meant was that if I cannot give the child food or home it should be preferencial to skip the hunger and cold of the world.

In my first argument maybe I was not being clear enough, but I meant that you should abort a baby that has a pulmonary dysfunction or a physiological hazard that tempts to kill the baby slowly, and I believe that neither of us has one of those diseases so I believe that neither had the true answer to that argument.

And in the third one I"m not talking only of the U.S, that actually was a big guess that you tried to do, and I"m not saying we HAVE to do it, but if a mother wants to help a little (IF she wants), she CAN have an abortion.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by TheCritic89 1 month ago
I'm with Con on it, and I wish I'd caught the opportunity to debate this first. Primarily because of what BackCommander wrote in his comment.

Scientists will tell you that a single cell can be proof of life The list is called the characteristics of life and contains 7 items upon which we define life. Also, by that list, the zygote is absolutely alive:

1. Living things are composed of cells: This should be obvious
2. Living things have different levels of organization: A zygote takes in cell products and organizes them to develop its growth. This is what is meant. Zygote passes first two.
3. Living things use energy: Zygotes grow and metabolize. Pass on three.
4. Living things respond to their environment: Zygote development absolutely responds to its environment. The vast majority of living cells in the world are single-celled organisms so let's not pretend this is surprising.
5. Living things grow: If you want to deny that zygotes grow, I would like to follow that up with a question about how you got here.
6. Living things reproduce: This is not the laymen's definition of "has sex." If a cell divides, it has reproduced. See #5.
7. Living things adapt to their environment: The cells of a zygote, as they grow, adapt to the resources and nutrients that are available in the uterus. There is a wealth of study that has identified the processes the embryo uses to engage the mother's body and manipulate it into giving the embryo more resources. Pregnancy is a constant resource struggle between the mother's body and the embryo's the whole 9 months.

To reiterate, you absolutely will never have a scientist tell you that a zygote is not its own individual- distinct from the mother- human life. No biologist would ever seriously make that claim. Additionally, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a scientist that wouldn't say a single cell is proof of life. A cell that exists likely came from another, meaning it would had to have gone throw almost the whole list
Posted by BackCommander 1 month ago
Con, killing people isn't illegal. That's just a lie, people get executed by the state all the time. Perfectly legal.
Also, no, scientists won't tell you that a single cell is proof of life, that too is a lie. There's an entire list of what dictates whether something is alive or not.

As a side note Con, "Not everyone in America is religious so let's take religion out of it." Why? Pro didn't point this out to you, but this debate is in the RELIGION category. You accepted a religious debate, then ignored that its a religious debate.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.