The Instigator
Jammie
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Aurelia
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points

Abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
Jammie
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2017 Category: Health
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 446 times Debate No: 102215
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

Jammie

Con

Here you go. Message me if you want to clear up anything, but I think we can just jump right in. I will clarify my stances:

I believe human life begins at conception,
Human life should be valued,
Abortion is wrong, as murder is wrong and abortion is murder.

As for your first round, just state your beliefs on this matter, as I have done. Then we can start.

Thank you for accepting, and good luck.
Aurelia

Pro

First, I would like to thank Con for this debate. I love debating things with people that have the opposite opinion. It lets me see others views on such matters.

My stances:

I believe that Abortion is ok under most circumstances.
If a woman/ girl doesn't intend to have a baby and then something happens, e.g. rape, then it should be ok.
Again thank you! And good luck to you.
Debate Round No. 1
Jammie

Con

I would first like to address the issue of rape/incest in relation to abortion. I don't think that anybody should be punished for the crimes of anyone else. Yet in abortions because of rape, the fetus is being punished for the crimes of it's father. That's obviously not fair. But your argument is obviously about the welfare of the mother. I hear arguments refer to how the mother doesn't want to be reminded of the rape every time she looks at her child. My response to this is one of anger. In this situation you are prioritising the emotions of one human over the life of another. That is wrong. Human life is infinitely more valuable than human emotions. I would also like to point out that abortions over rape or incest are the extreme minority of all abortions, so while I think it is still relevant to the debate, I still think it is not as central as other topics, given how many more abortions are caused by simple irresponsibility.

Which brings me perfectly onto my next point, the extreme majority of abortions. (If you want statistics I will be happy to supply them in the next round but it isn't even debatable, it is a fact that the extreme majority of abortions are not rape or incest). Anyone who wasn't raped and gets pregnant after sex should show responsibility for their actions. They know about sex, they know what the risks are, so they should accept the responsibility that there is a chance they could get pregnant. So excuses like 'I can't afford a child' and 'I'm not ready for one now' are ridiculous, as they knew the risks of having sex. If you couldn't afford a child, why have sex? You had sex. You made that decision, so you should accept the consequences. And don't even get me started on alcohol. The excuse of 'I was drunk and it just sort of happened' is the most stupid excuse I have ever heard. You decided to drink heavily! So accept the responsibility that comes with that. The bottom line is people need to take more responsibility for their actions, because if they don't babies will get killed.

And now onto the elephant in the room, is a fetus worth the same as a human life?

We have to start with the question, is human life after birth worth anything?

If the answer is no, than abortion is not a concern to you, and you wouldn't care either way. If it is, and you are pro abortion, then you must reach a point either in development or circumstance where the destruction of the fetus is justified.

For example, if you consider an unborn fetus not worthy of life at all, then what about premature births? If the fetus is delivered prematurely, it is considered human if it survives, but during the same stage in development, and it is unborn, it could be susceptible for abortion.

Of course, this may not be your view, in which there are only two options remaining.

1. You believe human life begins at conception, and therefore agree with my view.

2. There is a cut-off point in terms of development as to what constitutes human life, and what is worthy of human rights.

If your answer is 2, there is a fundamental error in your reasoning. The only way to instate a law regarding development is to base it on a set time period on when abortions can occur, and anything after that point is murder. This is the problem with this solution:

In a hypothetical scenario, a fetus is close to it's termination deadline. Let's say it's April 8th. At 23:59 on April 7th, destroying that fetus is no more legal or morally wrong than plucking a hair from your head, as that fetus isn't recognised as a human life. So you could get the abortion on April 7th at 23:59, no problem. How is it right then, that exactly one minute later, that would be murder? How can one minute decide the legitimacy of human life? In that split second between 23:59 and 00:00, the entire moral and legal standing of that fetus goes from morally worthless to the highest value ever issued in our communities and legal system. Nothing special happens in that split second, nothing drastically changes withing the fetus that somehow makes it eligible for human life. So, if it is valued at 00:00 and then onwards forever, but is worthless before hand, it must also be valued before that, at conception at least.

The problem is with the whole 23:59 --> 00:00 scenario is that it is illogical to attribute worth to something over a millisecond where nothing changes.
Aurelia

Pro

Again, I would like to thank Con for this debate.

I would like to address your first argument. You mentioned that you shouldn't punish someone for the crimes of others. Normally, I would agree with you. But, when it comes to a subject such as this one, there are a few points I would like to make. At this point in development for a baby/child, they can not survive in the world. So, I don't consider this to be "Murder". If the mother had a c-section at this stage of the baby's early development, and the baby couldn't live with little to no help, I don't believe this is harming the child as it could not survive on it' own.

Con stated that he/she has heard arguments refer to how the mother doesn't want to be reminded of the rape every time she looks at her child. Then goes on to say that I am prioritizing the emotions of one human over the life of another. Then goes on to say that human life is infinitely more valuable than human emotions. This is where I have a problem. The emotions of a someone is what really makes them a human.

Let's say that we lived in a world with no emotions. That would basically mean there is nothing. Humans fall into the category of animals. And without emotions, animals are nothing.

In Con's next paragraph, he/she says that most people know the risks of sex. If the woman/girl get pregnant after having sex they should take responsibility for such. To me, this is saying that you shouldn't have sex if you don't want to have a chance of having a child. I believe that, in some cases, making love is part of a relationship. People use different kinds of birth control to try to prevent having a child. If a couple wants to make love this is the best they can do. This leads me to my next point.

Con argues that "excuses" such as, "I can't afford a child." or "I'm not ready for one now." are "ridiculous". This I must address. When a girl/woman says this, it could be being used as an excuse. Yet normally, these statements are true. A lot of the time when someone says this, they mean it. They may not be ready to take on the responsibility or they may really not be able to afford to care of a child. If this is true and the mother is forced to have a child, this child is not going to grow up in the best living conditions. If a mother has a child, I want the best for that child. Don't you?

As for the alcohol topic. I must say that I agree with you. They were stupid. I still think this girl/woman should have the right to get an abortion if they would like to.

Con wonders/asks, "Is a fetus worth the same as a human life? Is human life after birth worth anything?" To this, I still say it depends upon the stage of development of the child. This is going back to how I viewed this is my first paragraph.

Con declares after asking/ wondering that there are only two options remaining for me to agree with/ disagree with. I say that there are almost always more than two ways to address something. This is one of those times.

My conclusion for this round is that I feel like when it comes to women it is their/our body, therefore, it is their/our choice.
Debate Round No. 2
Jammie

Con

'...I don't believe this is harming the child as it could not survive on it' own'

Many people in this world cannot survive on their own. Obviously you do care about the lives of the seriously disabled, but without the right help they cannot survive on their own. This is the same with the fetus. It is helpless, and needs a mother. And even if the mother had a c-section, that baby is still valid for life, as every baby cannot survive on it's own. So if you stick to what you said, it doesn't matter if any babies are murdered, they cannot survive on their own, so they are not being harmed.

'Let's say that we lived in a world with no emotions. That would basically mean there is nothing. Humans fall into the category of animals. And without emotions, animals are nothing.'

let's imagine a world were people's emotions given more priority than people's lives. If someone complained to the government because someone looked prettier than them and made them feel bad, the pretty person would be executed, as just by walking outside she made someone else felt self conscious. Obviously, this is ridiculous. What I am trying to say is that these hypothetical scenarios where one statement is used out of context achieve nothing, as they can easily be countered with an absurd hypothetical world on the other end of the opinion. The context I was referring to was the emotions of the mother vs the life of her child.

'If a couple wants to make love this is the best they can do. '

Yes, but it is their decision to make love. Nobody is forcing them to (that would be rape, but we're not talking about that in this point). They must accept responsibility for their actions. Just as when you cross the street you know there is a chance you could be hit by a car. In a perfect world, accidental pregnancies wouldn't happen, and people wouldn't be hit by cars, but we don't live in a perfect world and accidents happen. The difference with these two examples of risk is that crossing a street is pretty much essential of getting from point A to point B (at least in a city), while having sex is completely optional and not essential in any circumstance.

You mention that when a mother claims she can't afford a child, she's probably telling the truth. Well probably yes, but so what? Like I said before if you can't afford a child, don't have sex. What we need is more personal responsibility for people's actions. I just don't understand why this is not clear. When you make that decision, you are doing so knowing pregnancy can occur. Take responsibility! It's nobody's fault but your own. But let's say a woman gets pregnant anyway. You mention how the child will not grow up in the best living conditions. Okay, but who's fault is that? The mother's. You seen to claim that you want the best for the child, well so do I. Except my actions to ensure the well being of the child include restrictions to not let it be killed before it has even taken it's first breath. Your solution is to kill it. It seems mad to me that you say 'Well, I care about the well being of the child, let's just kill it now so it can't be harmed in the future'

'As for the alcohol topic. I must say that I agree with you. They were stupid. I still think this girl/woman should have the right to get an abortion if they would like to.'

What? Why? I'll just be repeating myself if I address this so just read my previous rebuttal and replace the word 'sex' with 'alcohol'

'Con declares after asking/ wondering that there are only two options remaining for me to agree with/ disagree with. I say that there are almost always more than two ways to address something. This is one of those times.'

Well go on then. What's your third option, I'd love to hear it. It can't be one of these two though:

1. You believe human life begins at conception, and therefore agree with my view.

2. There is a cut-off point in terms of development as to what constitutes human life, and what is worthy of human rights

So if you take a peek at your statement rebuttal for Round 2, you will notice you say:

'To this, I still say it depends upon the stage of development of the child.'

Okay, development of child, okay fine... wait hold on! You said you had other options other than option 1. and 2. But, option 2. says 'There is a cut off point in terms of development as to what constitutes human life, and what is worthy of human life'

The wording of 'Pro-Choice' is very clever indeed, as if you disagree with that, it sounds like you are against people making choices. Here's the thing, I am. Only certain choices though, choices such as whether I can pull the trigger of a gun and murder a passerby on the street. I feel in that situation I shouldn't have the choice, as I am killing someone. So how is that different from having an abortion? You're making a choice to abort. I'm making a choice to pull the trigger, yet one of them is considered murder and the other isn't. It is not about choice, not in this scenario. It is not about the choice to take a human life (unless it saves more lives).
Aurelia

Pro

Thanks for three rounds so far, Con.

I would like to clear a few things up. I definitely care about lives of children and other humans and animals. All I was trying to say is that if a mother has a c-section so early that even doctors can't help the child survive then I see little to no harm in an abortion. Say the mother had an abortion at week three. There is an extremely high chance that even if you wanted to, you couldn't keep that baby alive at three weeks. I think we have mostly exhausted this argument but, if you would like to add anything else feel free to.

'Let's imagine a world were people people's emotions given more priority than people's lives."
First, I don't want to bring grammar into this but, there is an error in this sentence. But, I strongly encourage those that vote on this debate to not worry about this particular sentence because I feel like you should vote on the debate not on grammar. To Con, make sure you watch that. Just a tip.

Ok, now that we got that out of the way, to this I would like to say that, people's lives don't really have much use if there are no emotions. Not to say that human lives don't matter. To me, it seems like human emotions should be taken into account.

I agree that it is a couple's decision whether to have sex or not. At this point, I don't really think there is much more to say about that. So let's move on from there. Of course if you have another point you would like to make, please feel free to.

I would like to address the topic of the mother not being able to afford the child. Just say a mother does get pregnant and she can not financially take care of it. If she doesn't have an abortion and has the child then, that child will most likely end up growing up in poverty. Do you really want that for a kid? I know I don't. At the point at which an abortion would take place, the child wouldn't be aware of it. It's not like were doing it when it would hurt them and they would be aware of it.

Alcohol. Again this brings me back to my closing statement in round two. Even if we make the wrong decisions it is still your body. I believe that it should be our choice.

Con goes on to say that I can't choose two options and that last time I choose option two. I would like to disagree with that and say that I used a mixture of option two and a completely different one. I don't think it is fair for Con to try and limit my options.

I don't want to make this personal but, if you are a guy or haven't experienced carrying a child and don't plan to then, what difference would it make to you if a mother has to carry a child for nine months? If you are in one of these situations then you can just sit back and criticize this all you want. Pregnancy does come with physical and mental tolls. If you don't want to take this into account then that is your choice. I just want to bring that up just in case you were feeling that way.

Again thank you for this debate. It has been very helpful to me. I've been able to see a different view of this topic and to think about it.
Debate Round No. 3
Jammie

Con

'Say the mother had an abortion at week three. There is an extremely high chance that even if you wanted to, you couldn't keep that baby alive at three weeks.'

There is a simple way to keep it alive, it's called having it live in the womb. The argument isn't that it will survive after abortion (I don't expect it to survive after abortion), the argument is the validity of the fetus. You claim the low chances of survival in under-developed fetus' is a reason why it's ok to abort, yet you ignored my counter argument where I mentioned the seriously disabled.

'First, I don't want to bring grammar into this but,...'

Well that's obviously untrue, as you just brought it up. Unlike you, I don't care about grammar, unless it is ineligible. By pedantically mentioning this small mistake, you brought it right to the voter's attention, and therefore are attempting to win the 'Who had better spelling and grammar?' section of the vote. You understood what I meant, but brought it up anyway. You seem to say this to give me a tip, well I don't need your tips. It seems like you may need mine. Here's a tip for you. When attempting to highlight a mistake in someone's grammar, don't make a mistake! You repeat the word 'people' in my quote, which technically isn't a quote as I did not repeat the word 'people'. The only reason I'm going into so much detail into this is because you had a bone to pick with the stupidest, most insignificant part of the debate. Stop being so unnecessarily pedantic.

'To me, it seems like human emotions should be taken into account.'

I agree, but in relation with human lives, I don't think people's emotions are worth more.

'I agree that it is a couple's decision whether to have sex or not. At this point, I don't really think there is much more to say about that. So let's move on from there.'

Please address my point instead of saying 'let's move on from there'. My point was that people know possible consequences of sex, so they should take responsibility. Instead of addressing this you just tried to move on and ignore it.

'If she doesn't have an abortion and has the child then, that child will most likely end up growing up in poverty. Do you really want that for a kid?'

I know that I would prefer a child to have a life at all then to be killed based on YOUR presumptions as to what makes a life worth more to live. If death is preferable to poverty, why not kill all of the homeless?

'It's not like were doing it when it would hurt them and they would be aware of it.'

If a child who couldn't feel pain and was deaf was shot in the back of the head, she wouldn't be aware of it and wouldn't feel pain, but the act of shooting her is horrible.

' I believe that it should be our choice.'

As much choice as getting to decide if you should pull the trigger of a gun and kill a random passerby.

' I don't think it is fair for Con to try and limit my options.'

??? Did you not read my previous argument, you know the one where I said 'Well go on then. What's your third option, I'd love to hear it'
I'm still waiting.
Since you have failed to provide at least a third option, you have proved me right, as I said there were only two options remaining. I know you are 'Pro-Choice', but at least try to keep your choices within the bounds of logic.

'...what difference would it make to you if a mother has to carry a child for nine months?'

Because I believe that every fetus is a human life, and is worthy of our rights. I could never be silent if I believed that something as precious as human life was being destroyed in it's most purest of forms, mostly because of the fact that many people have no responsibility when it comes to sex. You haven't refuted me. You claim the fetus isn't worthy of human rights, but nowhere you have explained how or why. If the fetus really isn't human and worthy of our values and rights, then tell me how.

You are acting as if the debate is over. It isn't, there are still two more rounds to go. But since you seem so eager to leave this debate, let's recap where we stand now.

I give reasons why the fetus is worthy of human rights, you don't refute them.
I say that people need to take more responsibility, you ignore me.
I mention how the seriously disabled need help, therefore refuting your point about the fetus not being viable for human life, you ignore it.
We both provide two hypothetical examples involving taking the other's statement on emotions and life to the extreme, yet you fail to explain how emotions are more valuable than life in the context of abortion.
You seem to think that poverty is worse than death.
Aurelia

Pro

Ok. You quote me on saying how you couldn't keep a fetus alive at three weeks. I'm afraid that there was a misunderstanding. I'm not saying that it was your fault. I don't think I worded this in the way I wanted to. What I said was not really what I was thinking and I'm sorry. So, let me rephrase that a little. What I intended to say was that if a mother had a
c-section then the baby would not be able to survive. You may have the same comeback to this. If that is the case then that is fine.

'You seem to say this to give me a tip, well I don't need your tips.'
Con gets annoyed and exasperated at my offer to help. Con says that my statement is untrue. Again, I think there was a misunderstanding. I meant that I didn't really want to but, I felt like it could help you. All I wanted to do was help and Con came back rather aggressively. No, I am just pointing this out because I want to win the "Who had better spelling and grammar?" Section. I was trying to provide some form of help. If you don't want my tip then you don't have to use it or take it into account. It doesn't really make any difference to me.

Con goes back to say that human lives are more important than human emotions. I won't supply a full argument to think as I think if I did so, we would just be going back to where we were before. As we have discussed this previously. If you have anything else to add, feel free to.

I agree with your point that people should take responsibility for their actions. But, I do still think that they should have the option of abortion.

On the topic of poverty, I believe that if we can SAVE a child from poverty then, we should. But, again I don't think this should be done without out the mother's consent. As I believe that it should be the mother's choice if she wants an abortion or not. I am not saying we should kill all of the homeless.

Yes, the act of shooting someone is horrible. I can agree with you to that point. Yet, I referring to a baby in a mother's care. If you don't want to kill a child and the mother doesn't want the child then, what do you suggest?

I still stick to my original opinion that it should be the woman/girl's choice of what to do. I, however, do not think this should apply to all people. To me, it should apply to mothers who don't want to be mothers.

"Did you not read my previous argument,"
Well, yes, I did. Did you read my answer where I clearly stated my opinion on this matter?

The next topic was the matter of the mother carrying a child for nine months. I asked this question in context. I suggest you go back and read this in the context it was written in.

Con goes on to recap what has happened so far. It seems that Con is trying to point out everything bad that has happened and none of the other content of this debate.
Yes, I know we have another round after this one. I didn't know I was coming across as eager to finish. I'm sorry. Again, I would like to thank Con for this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
Jammie

Con

You have yet again ignored my point about the disabled, even when I have specifically referenced it. My point is that the disabled can't survive on their own, and neither can the fetus, yet the disabled person is valued, and the fetus is not. Please finally address this point as opposed to ignoring it.

' I won't supply a full argument to think as I think if I did so, we would just be going back to where we were before. As we have discussed this previously.'

You seem to drop many points saying 'we have discussed this previously, so if you have anything to add, feel free to'
I have sufficiently rebutted your points on this topic, yet you ignore my points and drop the topic, which is an obvious sign that you do not have a response. You did this with the disabled example, as mentioned above.

'I agree with your point that people should take responsibility for their actions. But, I do still think that they should have the option of abortion.'

Then explain why! You simply state your opinion but never back it up with logic or reasoning.

' As I believe that it should be the mother's choice if she wants an abortion or not. I am not saying we should kill all of the homeless.'

Again, you fail to explain why.

'If you don't want to kill a child and the mother doesn't want the child then, what do you suggest?'

Adoption. Preferably, the mother would take responsibility for her irresponsible actions, but I would much rather prefer adoption to murder.

'I still stick to my original opinion that it should be the woman/girl's choice of what to do. I, however, do not think this should apply to all people. To me, it should apply to mothers who don't want to be mothers.'

I feel like a broken record here, but why? You simply state your opinion, but never say why.

' Did you read my answer where I clearly stated my opinion on this matter?'

You did not clearly state your opinion on this matter. You said this:

'Con goes on to say that I can't choose two options and that last time I choose option two. I would like to disagree with that and say that I used a mixture of option two and a completely different one. I don't think it is fair for Con to try and limit my options.'

You haven't explained the 'completely different one', and because you have wasted so many rounds incorrectly assuming you have explained it, now I don't have the opportunity to respond to the third option. (Which does not exist BTW)

'The next topic was the matter of the mother carrying a child for nine months. I asked this question in context. I suggest you go back and read this in the context it was written in.'

And I answered appropriately. My point was that a fetus is a human being, and if it was being killed I was going to speak out.

'Con goes on to recap what has happened so far. It seems that Con is trying to point out everything bad that has happened and none of the other content of this debate.'

And I will recap again, as if you think I am omitting key points, then correct me.

On the issue of the fetus' survival out side of the womb:

You ignored my point about the disabled, while I rebutted you with the disabled example.

On the significance of human emotions in relation to the worth of the fetus:

I provide you with a hypothetical example as absurd as yours when you imagine a world without emotions, therefore proving your hypothetical example is not relevant. I then claim that human lives are worth more than emotions in the context of abortions, and you ignore this.

On the responsibility of the parent to not have sex if they were not ready for the consequences:

You say it should be their choice, and then claim there is nothing more to say on the matter. I explain why I consider this problematic, namely that they know the risks and should take responsibility. You completely ignore me yet again.

On the issue of not wanting a child to grow up in poverty:

You claim you do not want a child to grow up in poverty, but fail to show how killing them is better for them. I ask you why not kill all the homeless if you feel this way, you do not explain why but simply say: ' I am not saying we should kill all of the homeless.'

On the issue of me preventing your choice of a third option (in relation to views on abortion):

You say your view is a mix of option 2 and another completely different view, yet you repeatedly avoid telling me what that option is.

Usually, the central topic in the abortion debate is the fetus' worth, and whether it deserves the same amount of rights as us. You have not once even attempted to disprove me on this, not once. You haven't explained how it isn't worth a human life, only that you don't think it is. The reason that the list above seems extremely one sided is that this debate so far has been. I'm getting really sick and tired of your simply ignoring my points, round after round. If you can't answer questions and rebut points, why are you on this site? Instead of rebutting me, you have simply ignored my points over and over and over again, and unfortunately it has created a rather aggravating debate, as the points I have put lots of thought and effort in are disregarded and completely ignored.
You have one, final round to write. I am hoping that you disprove and rebut all the points I have made, as otherwise there is no point in even going on this website.Please try and redeem yourself, you have one final chance, and then the debate is over.
Aurelia

Pro

I would first like to thank Con one last time for this debate and round five. I have enjoyed this debate so far. Personally, I think this is partially why this website is here. I believe that it is here to help with your debate skills and for you to enjoy debating.

When I say that I won't supply a full argument and that we have covered this topic before, Con says that I say this repeatedly. I will agree with this. I do say this. But, Con fails to realize that I only say this because it is what is happening. Con seems to like to bring up the same topics over and over again but, uses different wording. I guess this makes Con feel like it is a different point. So, when I say that we have already discussed this then, I mean, we have already talked about it. At that point, there is not much else to say as I have already said my view.

As to not addressing the example of the disabled, I don't think it is worth addressing. It isn't really the same as a baby. As a disabled person is in a completely different place than a fetus. Because like I said before, a fetus is not aware like of a disabled person is.

Addressing the point of people taking responsibility for their actions.

Con exclaims, "Then explain why! You simply state your opinion but never back it up with logic or reasoning."
To this, I have two responses. I said that even if someone is dumb they should still have the right to have an abortion. Con seems to be dying for me to say why. My reasoning for this is I believe that it should be a woman/girl's right to decide whether or not they want a kid. It is, after all, the woman/ girl that has to carry the child. Shouldn't it be her decision whether or not to be exhausted and possibly be sick every morning? Yes, if you didn't know those things do happen when a woman is pregnant. Again, if you are a guy, Con, then this wouldn't really make any difference to you. Would it?

My second response is Con continually obsesses over people taking responsibility for their actions. However, Con completely ignores one of my full paragraphs. Con doesn't say a single thing about that paragraph. In this paragraph I address Con being quite aggressive about me offering help. In other words, Con doesn't take responsibility for their actions. So, in other words, they are going against their point.

Why shouldn't we kill the homeless? Um, because they are people. And, because at that point they are aware of their surroundings.

Honestly, I feel like Con has run out of things to say and is now just talking. Con keeps going back to the same topic over and over again.

Adoption. Personally, I was adopted. I know that it can be extremely hard on the mother to give up her child. Even if she didn't want the child in the first place. It can also be hard on the child being adopted. But, this debate is not about adoption. It is about abortion.

I still don't believe that there are ever limited options regarding opinions on abortion. I believe that you are entitled to your opinion and you don't have to say directly what it is. Even if you wanted to you can never explain exactly how you feel to some else. Simply because they will never feel exactly the same why. So, why would it be easy to tell your opinion? I think you're smart enough to interpret what my opinion is without me having to guide you fully in this whole debate. That seems to me what is happening. But, again, this debate is not about how we write, it is about abortion.

It doesn't matter really what I think, my stance is to argue the opposite side of what you said as it is a debate. I am to debate this topic as well as I can. In debates, you don't always get to pick a side. I am simply debating with you on the topic of Abortion. Which we seem to have gotten off track.

This leads me to go back to round one. I am Pro, therefore my stances are, that abortion is ok under most circumstances. I clearly stated this in the first round. If a girl/woman doesn't intend to have a baby then something happens, e.g. rape, then it should be ok. But, let's not get into rape again as that is a completely different debate. It should is a woman/girl's choice to have a baby or not. It is her body. it should be her choice.

Thank you again, Con for this debate. I have enjoyed it. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by rsz42 11 months ago
rsz42
JammieAureliaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Although I don't like to see someone with the opposing opinion gain my points, I won't bias my judging off of my opinion. The spelling and grammar were equal between teams, the arguments were equally as convincing. Pro did a better job than I had expected coming into this debate. Neither side used sources, so therefore that remains tied. Pro's repetitive use of "thank you" and "good luck" is what gets the only points of this debate, as that results in better conduct in my opinion.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 11 months ago
dsjpk5
JammieAureliaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Coveny 11 months ago
Coveny
JammieAureliaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: In R4 Con statements of stupidest, most insignificant, pedantic are all bad conduct. Con badgered Pro in other area as well but that was over the top. Neither had sources so the whole debate is just opinions. I don't feel like either side had a convincing argument even if I feel like Con did present more points for his case and Pro just seemed to be defending the whole debate. Pro it seems like you are new to debating, when someone tries to force you into only two options the term for this is false dichotomy. (for future reference)