The Instigator
Ariezx
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
SamwiseGamgee
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Abortion

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  
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: 11/7/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 197 times Debate No: 96776
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Ariezx

Pro

Parameters and Precepts:


  • Round 1-Acceptance

  • Round 2-Cases

  • Round 3-Rebuttals

  • Round 4-Defense


Abortion should be deem legal. With that statement, I ,of course, confirm that I will be defending the legitmacy of abortion in regards to the legality and morality of it. I have faith in the notion that the Gods of propability will confer me with a provakative debate with a competent opponent.

SamwiseGamgee

Con

So many people think abortion is all good because the child is "not fully formed." Aren't children still forming? Is it okay to kill an unborn child, but not a four year old? A baby is a baby, and it doesn't matter if they're born or not. Why would we murder a child?
I know that this logic won't work for most people, but I'm going to get a little religious on you. Some people allow abortion because the woman was raped, but it says in Ezekiel (in the bible) in the eighteenth chapter and the twentieth verse, do not judge the child for the sins of the father. And if the birth would hurt the mother, why would that make a difference? Just because you'll be hurt, you can't just kill someone. It's not okay to kill anyone, especially a baby.
Debate Round No. 1
Ariezx

Pro

I would like to first thank my opponent for accepting this debate. In this debate, my objective is to clarify any misconceptions of abortion as well as insert philisophical context into the debate as well.

C1-Legality:
Roe v. Wade was the supreme court case where the judges deemed barring people from abortion to be completely unconstitutional. The supreme court case also stated that females have rights towards the longevety of the embryo. The embryo or fetus does not have access to the same rights as a female. The fetus's transition to legitimate personhood commences in the 22nd to 24th week.

C2-Embryo or Fetus
In order for con to win on grounds of legality, than con must prove that the embryo or fetus is equivilant to a human being. In this contention, I will convey the differances between an embryo/fetus and a human being. between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beingsthey are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a womans uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.

C3-Brain
The brain commences in a fetus on the 22nd to 24th week. Duing those weeks, abortions are deemed illegal. I will also propound the notion that the human brain is really the essential component of a human being. Without a brain, the human is not truly a being. The brain controls the conciousness and subconcious parts of the human body. Without the brain, a human would be incapable of walking, talking, eating, and working. The actions mentioned previously are actions essential towards the notion of a human being. A brain does not constitute for an embryo or an early fetus allowing for there to be more transparent similarities between a sperm/ova and an embryo/fetus. Adhering to Pro-life logic would allow for one to deem expulsion of sperm to be a signifcation of death. The sperm could have been utilized for reproduction, but the irresponsible male only excerisises the satisfactory perogative.

C4-Statistics:
j25; In 2008, umarried women accounted for 85% of abortions.
j25; Women between the ages of 20-24 accounted for 32% of abortions.
j25; Women who have had no prior abortion account for 55% of abortions.
j25; Women who make under poverty wage($20,000) account for 60% of abortions.

C5-Repercussions of refraining:
The last statistic should astound many, because a depletion of 16,500 dollars should occur for the intention to raise a healthy child. 16,500 dollars is the average amount of money spent on a child. The lives of those women would be signifcantly degraded, and the repercussions the abortion being deemed illegal would lead to not only the single mother suffering from destitution, but also the child being destitute.
I would request several inquiries on my opponent's perspective on abortion to bolster the awareness in the debate.
1. What are the differances between a sperm and a fetus or embryo?
2. Do you really believe a human body part is vindication of a human being?
3. How do the rights of a fetus outweigh the rights of the mother.
4. Are you content with the fact that many single mothers will suffer destitution if abortion were deemed illegal?
SamwiseGamgee

Con

Finally, someone who provides a real challenge. I have to say, I thought that this was going to be a little less intense, but I hope I am up to the challenge.
Firstly, you argue that an unborn baby is not a real human because it is not fully formed. Is anyone really fully formed until they reach the point where their bodies stop growing? This can take years after adulthood. Is it okay to kill them? I know you said that it was different, and I agree, to an extent. It is different to kill a man instead of an unborn baby. You can't hear the screams.
You also state that "without a brain, the human is not truly a being." If you lose your arm, do you lose your status of human? If you lose an eye, are you an animal to be killed because you were an inconvenience? What of your heart? With a fake heart (which has been done before and will be done again), do you lose your soul? A brain is just another part of the body, albeit one we can't live without. It provides thought, but thought does not make us human. What makes us human is we were born from humans, live with humans, have the same anatomy as humans, and act like humans. Humanity is not something we gain. It's something we are.
I know you will say now: "If our anatomy makes us human, then if someone has a different anatomy, they aren't human, and the unborn baby is just that." I'm sure you can put it better, but such is life. If you have a different anatomy as a fully functional, grown man, you can't be human, right? Actually, a lot of people have a different anatomy than a fully grown male, like: older people, women, children, people with deformities or disabilities, and last of all: a fetus. Just because this baby is different from you (who I am sure has a functional brain), that doesn't make it a petty rat to kill when it's in your way.
I would like to look at your sources that you so graciously provided. Abort73 being the first one, let's look at it first. It says on the website that abortion fatalities have happened, and not just the babies, or "fetuses (if that is the wording that you use to dehumanize them). It reads, and I quote: "On average, women give three reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a kid would interfere with work, school, or other responsibilities, about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child, and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single mother or are having problems with their husband or partner." Excuse me for saying so, but I do not think that inconvenience is grounds for killing a child. For the 3/4 of the mothers who say they can't afford a child and the 1/2 that say they're having troubles with their significant other, adoption is a real thing, and foster homes do tend to work out in the end. Instead of killing the kid, give him (or her) to someone who wants him (or her).
The next source talks of the cost of children. More specifically, raising them. But, as I mentioned earlier, putting a child up for adoption is free. Why kill the kid when some mother with empty nest syndrome so desperately needs someone to love?
The next source, 10storiesofsinglemothers.org, has no real real connection to abortion. Okay, these are the stories of real (Australian) mothers who didn't abort. But, if you looked these mothers in the eye and asked them if they wanted to kill their kid, they would say no. Because children are precious, and you can't kill them. If they really wanted to, they could hand them over to someone else.
Finally, your questions. I would have started with these, but I already started writing a response before I really read them. Without further ado, the answers you're so eager to hear:
1. A sperm is not a human being, just as you do not call seeds flowers. It needs somewhere to lay its roots before you call it a plant. A fetus or embreo is that same metaphorical plant before it pokes its head out of the soil.
2. No, but a body without a part is.
3. The rights of a fetus are equal to those of a mother. It is not right to kill either.
4. No woman should suffer destitution. Instead of Planned Parenthood, how about we give that money to those women who really need it.
Debate Round No. 2
Ariezx

Pro

Thank you for the quick response. This portion will be repleted with rebukes against the arguments propounded by Con.

Point 1- "you argue that an unborn baby is not a real human because it is not fully formed. Is anyone really fully formed until they reach the point where their bodies stop growing"
Con ought to become a scientist. I always deemed it to be truly incomprehensible how their was a need in science to diffrentiate a fetus and a baby. There are only miniscule differances between a fetus and a baby. Minisucle differancees such as how a fetus depends on the mother for its survival. The fetus depends on the mother for food. The fetus will die if the mother will die. This is a common occurance that human beings go through as well. The fetus also between the 1st and 8 weeks will not have fully developed its brain. After the brain is develeoped, than the fetus starts to develop its arms, legs, and hands.

I hope my sarcasm remained transparent. Po-lifers fail to comprehend that fetus's do not have access to rights. Fetus's are completely dependent on the mother, and the mother's rights completely outweigh a bowl of cells rights if it has any. Here is why Pro-Choice wins this argument.

Con fails to any adequete evidence diffrentiating a baby from a fetus.

Con fails to explicate the link between the fetus and the baby.

Con fails to rebuke the notion of a fetus being completely dependent on the mother.

Con fails to adress the legality argument(Does a Fetus have rights) which should be rendered as a drop.

Point 2: "You also state that without a brain, the human is not truly a being. If you lose your arm, do you lose your status of human?"

I appreciate the attempt to propound semantisism to convey your points, but your argument is completely unfounded, because it is based upon a false equivilance. A brain is what diffrientiates humans from apes, monkeys, lions, tigers, and horses. The brain dictates the functions of a human being. The reason why Con can participate in this debate is because of the mind. The reason why Con can propell pro-life absurdities is because of the mind. Take his mind away, and observe the repercussions of an individual without a mind. Is that really human. A 25 year old with no mind can easily be compared to a fetus before 8 weeks or an ant which is an offense towards ants, because ants actually carry out tasks. Anatamy makes us human, but what forms the anatoms. The brain allows for those actions to be carried out. Con claims that all components of humanity make us human. Yet, what really makes us die. The human brain is still alive after the heart ceases which can generate hallucinations.

Con's foundation is based upon a false equivilance which nullifies the whole argument.

Pro's argument still remains viable on the mind.

Pro has provided clear vindication of how essential a mind is to a human, because the repercussions of a human lacking a mind are clear.

Point 3: "Excuse me for saying so, but I do not think that inconvenience is grounds for killing a child."

I can see how the word inconvenience can delude you, but I would speculate that many words concerning abortion would delude you. Yes, it is an inconvinience to not only endure the pain of childbirth, but to impel a poor woman to pay for it. A C-section will usually cost between $14,000 dollars to $25,000 dollars. Many of the women that attain abortions are too destitute to have access to insurance which would impel them to suffer this stipulation. A C-section will usually cost 3,000 dollars if the woman has access to insurance. An abortion to abrogate a growing seed is a more advantagous.

Con completely underestimates the costs of childbirth.

Con still adheres to the logic that a bowl of cells without a brain is entitled to the same rights as a fully functioning adult.

Conclusion:

The debate should not only be judged by the legality of abortion, but the repercussions of con's world. In con's world, women would face certain destitution in the face of a fetus having rights. In con's world, individuals who are brain dead are still considered living. In con's world, a human body part can be classified as life.

Thank you for the quick response. This portion will be repleted with rebukes against the arguments propounded by Con.

Point 1- "you argue that an unborn baby is not a real human because it is not fully formed. Is anyone really fully formed until they reach the point where their bodies stop growing"
Con ought to become a scientist. I always deemed it to be truly incomprehensible how their was a need in science to diffrentiate a fetus and a baby. There are only miniscule differances between a fetus and a baby. Minisucle differancees such as how a fetus depends on the mother for its survival. The fetus depends on the mother for food. The fetus will die if the mother will die. This is a common occurance that human beings go through as well. The fetus also between the 1st and 8 weeks will not have fully developed its brain. After the brain is develeoped, than the fetus starts to develop its arms, legs, and hands.

I hope my sarcasm remained transparent. Po-lifers fail to comprehend that fetus's do not have access to rights. Fetus's are completely dependent on the mother, and the mother's rights completely outweigh a bowl of cells rights if it has any. Here is why Pro-Choice wins this argument.

Con fails to any adequete evidence diffrentiating a baby from a fetus.

Con fails to explicate the link between the fetus and the baby.

Con fails to rebuke the notion of a fetus being completely dependent on the mother.

Con fails to adress the legality argument(Does a Fetus have rights) which should be rendered as a drop.

Point 2: "You also state that without a brain, the human is not truly a being. If you lose your arm, do you lose your status of human?"

I appreciate the attempt to propound semantisism to convey your points, but your argument is completely unfounded, because it is based upon a false equivilance. A brain is what diffrientiates humans from apes, monkeys, lions, tigers, and horses. The brain dictates the functions of a human being. The reason why Con can participate in this debate is because of the mind. The reason why Con can propell pro-life absurdities is because of the mind. Take his mind away, and observe the repercussions of an individual without a mind. Is that really human. A 25 year old with no mind can easily be compared to a fetus before 8 weeks or an ant which is an offense towards ants, because ants actually carry out tasks. Anatamy makes us human, but what forms the anatoms. The brain allows for those actions to be carried out. Con claims that all components of humanity make us human. Yet, what really makes us die. The human brain is still alive after the heart ceases which can generate hallucinations.

Con's foundation is based upon a false equivilance which nullifies the whole argument.

Pro's argument still remains viable on the mind.

Pro has provided clear vindication of how essential a mind is to a human, because the repercussions of a human lacking a mind are clear.

Point 3: "Excuse me for saying so, but I do not think that inconvenience is grounds for killing a child."

I can see how the word inconvenience can delude you, but I would speculate that many words concerning abortion would delude you. Yes, it is an inconvinience to not only endure the pain of childbirth, but to impel a poor woman to pay for it. A C-section will usually cost between $14,000 dollars to $25,000 dollars. Many of the women that attain abortions are too destitute to have access to insurance which would impel them to suffer this stipulation. A C-section will usually cost 3,000 dollars if the woman has access to insurance. An abortion to abrogate a growing seed is a more advantagous.

Con completely underestimates the process of childbirth.

Con still adheres to the logic that a bowl of cells without a brain is entitled to the same rights as a fully functioning adult.

Conclusion:

The debate should not only be judged by the legality of abortion, but the repercussions of abortion

SamwiseGamgee

Con

Hi, this is Con. I noticed you copied your text and pasted it, and I'm sure it was either unintentional or you were uncomfortable about the size of your argument. I will now look through your argument and try my best to destroy your ideas of justified murder. I also would appreciate if you would cut down on the sarcasm and slander. If you're going to be sarcastic, at least try to make it sound sarcastic instead of just saying "Con ought to be a scientist."
Point 1-Dependence on mothers
When a baby is born, he is every bit as dependent on his mother as before birth. He is helpless, he can't survive on his own. Are you going to deny his rights too? If a senior is on life support, can you just shoot him? Dependence is not a deciding factor on the giving of rights.

A Baby and a Fetus-Differences
A fetus is an unborn baby. A fetus is always a baby, but a baby is not always a fetus.
The Link Between Fetus And Baby
A fetus, by definition, is an unborn mammal. In this case, we are talking about human fetuses. A baby is a very young child, usually near the age of birth. Near the age of birth, however, isn't always the case. Many babies are cut down before they can reach that age.
The Fetus is Dependent on the Mother
You yourself are dependent on someone. If you did not lie about your age, I would say that you yourself are dependent on your parents to provide you with food and shelter. When you were not yet born, you were dependent on your mother. If she goes into a nursing home or needs to be on life support, she is also dependent on others. Is that really why you should deny someone's rights?
The Legality Argument
Yes, it is legal. Yes, I think that this is a mistake. Wasn't this argument about whether or not it should be legal or not?

Point 2-The Mind
The only reason so many people say yes to abortion. The Mind. The conscious. When does the baby develop this? The truth is, nobody knows. We know that before intercourse, the baby does not have one. We know that after birth, the baby does have one. But nobody knows when the baby develops it. Yes, the victim not having a brain is not excuse for murder. But the mind is, apparently. You imply that there is no mind without the brain. The truth is, no human can ever know for sure about something so abstract. We can't risk killing a baby if they could be conscious.

Point 3: Excuse me for saying so, but I don't think inconvenience is grounds for killing a child.
So you feel pain. That is a natural part of life (although you can take painkillers to greatly reduce it). You don't have to be destitute just because of a childbirth. Tax dollars and charities already go to abortions. A simple switch of funds, some maternity leave, and you can get back to your life. You can't kill a child because it is "more advantageous."

Con completely gives a good idea that will cover the cost of childbirth.

Con still adheres to the logic that a baby that just hasn't been born yet is entitled to not being murdered. This is not the same rights a a fully formed child because it isn't entitled to child labor laws, education, food, or a family.

Conclusion
The debate should not only be judged by the legality, but by the advantages of Con's world. We would have more children, and mothers wouldn't have to pay for abortion because they would get a free childbirth and all women would be entitled to maternity leave. In con's world, a human missing a body part wouldn't be classified as a non-human. In con's world, you would be a human being even if you were brain-dead.
Debate Round No. 3
Ariezx

Pro

It's wonderful to know that my opponent percieves it to be a possibility that I could have copied and pasted by case over due to a hidden insecurity on the length of the case. I am still in awe of how either I was able to copy and paste it, or how Debate.org gliched itself. Nevertheless, we still have a round to conclude with a person who has just set forth the notion that I am justifying murder. I would also notify Con that there should be no introduction of new arguments. This round will just be a notification to the judge on how the arguments set forth in the previous rounds justify your victory.
Point 1-Dependence on mothers:
Con has added the argument that my logic would also justify killing babies. As I outlined in round 3, their are significant diffferances between a baby and a fetus. A fetus is not complete in having grown its mind, arms, legs, and feet. It also states that the fetus is truly complete with developing those parts on the 22nd to 24th week. That is usually when abortions are deemed illegal. A senior is still a human being is outside his mother's womb. A senior still developed all the essential human components. Fetuses do not have that.
  • Con still subconciously rejects the fact that a fetus is truly complete between the 22nd and 24th week.
  • Con will still have to continue equating a baby to a fetus. His justification is that a fetus is a baby in the stomach. Judges should note that it has never been rebuked that the fetus is only done developing essential components for a baby until the 22nd to 24th week. Before that, it still has not even consolidated its brain. A sperm can still be classified as an unborn male according to Con's logic. Con claims that sperm is unfertilized which bestows it with exemption. Though, it is still a fact that sperm could have had a life which fertilized. The government ought to ban masturbation, because it is expelling basic life. That is how I view this abortion debate. Stop defending potential. There is still potential for sperm to live.

Point 2-The Mind
No, its been solidified for the debate that the brain is consolidated after 8 weeks. That fact was inserted during round 2. I also clarified in round 2 that abortions should and are deemed illegal after 8 weeks. If I was brain dead, than I would classify myself as dead.

  • Con's only path to victory for this argument is uncertainty. The facts have already been set forth in round 2 which completely eleminates any chance of victory for his argument. A brain is usually consolidated after 8 weeks where abortions are usually deemed illegal.

Point 3: Excuse me for saying so, but I don't think inconvenience is grounds for killing a child.

Con argues that it is still not on grounds for killing a child. This argument already falls due to lacking brain, body parts, and extreme dependency. Con also appears to completely ignore the fact that his world would allow for poverty wage people pay 15,000 dollars for a C-section. Poverty wage people are paid 20,000 dollars per year. A surgery like that would leave a woman destitute, and bring in a motherless child.

  • Con would simply allow for people to be left destitute in order to insure that a lacking fetus can become a human.
  • Con has not een retorted this argument which should be deemed a drop. Pro obviously wins this point.Con only wins if the judge truly possesses the conception that a motherless child and a mother without basic human needs is a just moral repercussion.

Conclusion:

I still really can't see how Con won this debate. His whole argument relies on potential. Sperm have potential. A sperm can be compared to a fetus which Con has not sufficiently rebuked. Spem do not have brains, yet they are still capable of growing those components if fertilized. Con's worldview would justify banning masturbation if we were to concede to the logic of potential. Potential is what a sperm has. Letting a sperm be expelled without it being fetilized ought to be deemed a crime in Con's worldview. We all started off as sperm. That is indisputable. Con's arguments deconstruct themselves. Take all of his arguments, and defend the rights of a sperm. If the judge percieves Con to be the victor, than sperm ought to also have rights. He can use the fertilization argument, but than I can use the child birth argument. If child birth or prefferably body parts intact does not diffrientiate a fetus from a baby, than fertilization has the same grounds as child birth. Vote Pro.

SamwiseGamgee

Con

I would just like to say that this is it. The last argument in the last round. The pressure falls to me. I will try to explain this in as many ways as possible: abortion is just as bad as killing the baby after birth. You can justify this however you want, but it won't make it right.

Point 1: Dependence on Mothers

In your last argument, you failed to talk about my argument for dependence very much at all. After simply restating your previous argument, you say that a senior is different from a baby in that it grew a brain, arms, and legs. So, if a human ever had arms and legs, it's not okay to kill them. Those born without arms or legs are just...... unfortunate. Of course, I am not talking about the brain. But is the brain really the part of the body that makes you human? All animals have brains, and they aren't human. Are brains what make us alive? True, without a brain, we die, but we would also die without a heart. As I said earlier, artificial hearts are now available. And the idea that we can't live without a brain would be completely wrong if we proved that unborn babies were alive. So read on.

You say that I subconsciously reject the fact that a fetus is truly complete between the 22nd and 24th week. Of course, this goes with what I'm saying, so why would I reject it? Abortions can happen later than that and they have, so you're saying that this would be wrong. You say that the baby has not "consolidated its brain." As I said before, a brain does not make a human alive or even human. A brain is simply another part of the body. Now, I know that some people will argue that the brain is essential for the mind, and the mind is what makes a human, or any creature, alive. But I argue that a brain is not essential to the mind. Nobody knows how the mind, or indeed the spirit or any other non-material part of a person, works. All we know is that the brain is the gateway to the mind. Sure, that sounds pretty essential. But killing the baby before that brain forms is just removing the mind before it has a chance to act through the body. We do not know anything about the mind or spirit (both said to be essential to life), so we cannot know whether killing the baby before 22-24 weeks actually kills the mind or spirit. We should not dabble in such things before we know more about it.

Some may say that there is no mind or spirit, and we are just pointless machines, pre-coded to do certain tasks. You may also believe that there is no God, and so it would be illogical to say there is anything but the body. While I would love to argue the existence of God, this isn't the time nor place. Back on the topic of the mind existing, we could not do all the things we do if it weren't for something else. No matter how complex our DNA is (which is rather odd it formed completely out of primordial sludge), how can it explain things like rock-and-roll? How can it explain fashion? (Not the aspect of fashion that tempts the body by suggestion of intercourse, the obsession of matching colors and patterns to look pleasing.) There is a mind, and you can't simply take its body away because it's not yet ready.

You say by my logic, "A sperm can still be classified as an unborn male according to Con's logic." You go so far as to say that I am suggesting sperm to be equivalent to you or me. I am not. I am saying the combining of sperm and egg, given a short amount of time (some say 24 hours, but I suggest no more than a couple days), leads to the creation of a human being. A human being is not something you can just kill because it bothers you. That is not okay in today's day and age.

Point 2: The Mind (one I already made)

You say abortion is illegal after eight weeks. States decide when it's illegal, and it ranges from eight weeks to, well, never. For example, the state of Montana might say after eight weeks it's illegal, but my home state of Oregon says whenever's fine.

You say the only way I could win is "uncertainty." Yes, it is. Like Russian Roulette, I say that there might be a slight chance that you may kill a baby. Or wait, do I?
My argument is that we know nothing about the mind and we should leave guesswork out of it. We as humans know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the mind. We can't just perform brain surgery by poking the brain with a stick and hoping we hit the problem instead of something vital. WE CANNOT KILL A BABY AND JUST HOPE IT WASN'T ALIVE YET.

Point 3: Inconvenience and its relation to the killing of babies.

Pro argues that having babies being born is expensive. It could cost 15000 dollars to have a c-section. But not all births are c-sections, and not all c-sections are expensive. Remember that abortion itself can cost up to 1500 dollars. That's three month's worth of food.

The thing about planned parenthood is that it gets money from the government AND the people needing the services it provides (mainly abortions). It could last without tax dollars. If we use those tax dollars to make birth less expensive than abortion, more women would give birth instead of killing the baby.

Alternate logic: Religious

Lots of churches (or synagogues, temples, and the like) look down on abortion, but why? It is because in practically all religions, murder is bad. Heck, in atheism, murder is bad. The holy people of the world look down on abortion simply because it is killing the innocent baby before birth. Since many religions feature ideas about the soul, the baby is not seen as a human-to-be, it is seen as the husk of a soul that isn't fully formed. I will admit proudly that I enjoy being religious, but don't think less of my argument for it.

Conclusion:

I hope what I've said will let me win this debate. No, my whole argument does not rely on potential. It is almost the opposite, saying that the unborn baby (or fetus) has just as much right to live as the born baby. Sperm do not have brains, but that is not why sperm do not have the same rights as us. Sperm are not a human being, they are a component to a human being. Sugar does not sell for as much as a cake, and sperm don't have the rights of a baby.
My worldview would not ban masturbation, although there are better uses for your time. We did not all start out out as sperm, seeing as that is only half of what we were made of. Take my arguments and defend the innocent baby, even if his father is not. No, my arguments don't deconstruct themselves, they stand together, a chain of logic stopping the murder of innocents. If a baby isn't yet born, why should we kill him? Is that the only excuse?
Please, vote for those who could've lived. Vote Pro Life.
(Abortion is anti-life. Life is precious. Ending it is a terrible act of violence.)
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 weeks ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Capitalistslave// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources), 2 points to Con (Conduct, S&G). Reasons for voting decision: Pro made more convincing arguments as con didn't sufficiently argue why a fetus should have the same rights as humans. Pro had better spelling and grammar since con misspelled difference several times, among other words, while con never misspelled a word. Pro is the only one who used sources, so sources go to them,

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter does not explain conduct. (2) S&G is insufficiently explained. The voter appears to misallocate the point, awarding it to Con while explaining in their RFD that it went to Pro. Also, the voter is required to show how the S&G of one side made it difficult to understand their argument. Misspelling certain words is, by itself, not sufficient. (3) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both debaters. Merely stating what Con didn't do is not enough. (4) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to explain how those sources were reliable, and not just that one side had some while the other did not.
************************************************************************
Posted by missmedic 4 weeks ago
missmedic
Religion is one of the problems concerning abortion. The number one cause of abortion is unwanted pregnancies. Reduce the causes and you reduce abortion. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
No votes have been placed for this debate.