The Instigator
pi3.14
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
NKJVPrewrather
Pro (for)
Losing
4 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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
02days11hours36minutes04seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2018 Category: People
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 267 times Debate No: 107985
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

pi3.14

Con

I am pro-life and against abortion, unless the life of the mother is at stake. If you choose to set up your debate in this round, you may (if you include all the sources and details and everything), but you must waive round five so we have equal rounds to debate. Otherwise, you could state a summary of your opinion ("I am pro-choice and I believe life starts at birth" [or something like that) and you won't have to waive that last round. If you just want to do the summary, you may state your beliefs on which abortions are okay in your opinion and when you believe life starts. Anyone may answer this debate, but please do remember to keep it civil. I await your response.
NKJVPrewrather

Pro

I don't think abortion should be abolished, because 1. What if the mother's life is in danger, 2. The mother has medical problems, 3. the baby would be born paralyzed, and more. When two human lives are connected, there has to be some choice. I support safe, legal, and last resort. Al;so, don't be cruel enough to force liuttle girls or rape victims to give birth, or domestic violence victims.
Debate Round No. 1
pi3.14

Con

Thank you for accepting! I look forward to debating you to see what you have to say. Anyway, here is my argument.

"I don't think abortion should be abolished, because 1. What if the mother's life is in danger." Well... I addressed that in my opening argument. In fact, I said, "I am pro-life and against abortion, unless the life of the mother is at stake."

"2. The mother has medical problems" Please clarify this in your next argument. Anyway, abortion can cause medical problems too, such as bleeding, infertility, etc. Also, it can cause things like depression.

"3. the baby would be born paralyzed, and more." So what if the baby is paralyzed? Do you think that if somebody got into a car accident tomorrow and was paralyzed from the neck down that their life no longer matters?

"I support safe, legal, and last resort." so, just because it is safe for ONE person (even that is debatable), does that mean it is okay? Oh, it's okay for someone to commit murder, because it is safe for the MURDERER. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right! If murder were legalized, would that make it okay? NO!

"Al;so, don't be cruel enough to force liuttle girls or rape victims to give birth, or domestic violence victims." In a lot of these cases, their families/friends pressure them to have an abortion. Also, just because someone was raped doesn't give them the right to murder! After all, two wrongs doesn't make it right! You should be going after the rapist, not the innocent baby! You are just making the baby a second victim of the rape if you abort him/her. Also, many people who do go through with the pregnancy in these situations find healing through the baby. Also, there are many stories where they get over the rape a few years later, but don't get over the abortion, even decades later!

I await your argument. (Also, I have decided you don't need to waive the fifth round.)
NKJVPrewrather

Pro

I was raped, and if I conceived something, I would have had the right to choose abortion because I have the right to not coparent with my rapist. 31 states deny the victim's right to choose adoption without her rapist's consent. This ios not true choice. Also, what if the mother is pregnant with 5 embryos by nature, and that is just too much? What if the mother is mentally ill like I am? What if the mother ius in a violent relationship?
Debate Round No. 2
pi3.14

Con

You don't have to coparent with the rapist; you can give it up for adoption. Please cite your source that says adoption is illegal in 31 states if the rapist doesn't give consent. Also, even if this is true, you can get help with the child from family and friends.

"I have the right to not coparent with my rapist." The baby's right to live overrules that right. Also, you should

"This ios not true choice." Neither is someone getting coerced into an abortion by abortion providers, family, and friends.

"Also, what if the mother is pregnant with 5 embryos by nature, and that is just too much?" Please give more detail on this idea. Again, they could be given up for adoption.

"What if the mother is mentally ill like I am?" If you don't feel ready for kids, don't *ahem* do anything with a man. Also, what does that have to do with anything? Abortion is still murder and thus is still wrong!

"What if the mother ius in a violent relationship?" Once again, you can give the baby up for adoption, discontinue the relationship, and *ahem* not do anything with a man. The father's actions do not justify your killing of the baby.
NKJVPrewrather

Pro

https://www.theatlantic.com...
I just proved my opponent wrong. Additional proof can be provided.
Debate Round No. 3
pi3.14

Con

All you did to "rebut" my argument in round three was to provide an article where you got one of your pieces of information. That should have been given in round two since the burden of proof was on you (because you provided a fact about a certain law in certain states, so you have to give an article to show it wasn't made up) for that given fact. You did nothing to counter the rest of my argument.

"31 states deny the victim's right to choose adoption without her rapist's consent." (you, round two) In round three, you gave an article to back that up... except the article you gave said not one word about abortion. It just had two short paragraphs about a rapist's visitation and custody rights.

"I just proved my opponent wrong." No, no you didn't. My previous arguments still stand because neither you nor your provided article addressed them. Please, with your next turn actually rebut my arguments. I await an actual rebuttal.
NKJVPrewrather

Pro

I provided evidence to oprove you wrong. Rape victims are often forced to coparent with a rapist, and what are you doiing about it?
Debate Round No. 4
pi3.14

Con

"I provided evidence to oprove you wrong." Where is this "evidence" you talk about? I already rebutted your "evidence" you presented from that website. That website has insufficient evidence for your entire "argument" to be based around it anyway.

"Rape victims are often forced to coparent with a rapist, and what are you doiing about it?" There are many flaws with this question. First off, it is completely off topic since we are supposed to debate whether or not abortion is okay. Also, I can think something is wrong without actively doing something about it. For example, I can think that people in 3rd world countries not being able to eat enough is bad, but I don't have to go over there and feed them myself to be eligible to hold that opinion. I have the right to hold any opinions I want without actively doing anything about them.

To sum it up, you should vote con because:
- I tried my best to stay on the topic of abortion, but pro did not.
- I answered all of pro's arguments and rebutted them, but pro didn't really rebut my arguments.
- I answered all of pro's questions while pro did not answer mine.
- Example: "'Also, what if the mother is pregnant with 5 embryos by nature, and that is too much?' Please give more detail on this idea." (Me, round 3) Pro never brought this up later as I asked.
- I went more into detail and didn't respond with just one or two sentences.

Vote con!
NKJVPrewrather

Pro

I provided a link that proves rape victims have to choose between abortion and coparenting with a rapist. If you want to cuntinue trolling, that is not my problem. I think it is the highest form of rape culture to force a rape victim to do anything.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by pi3.14 1 week ago
pi3.14
Again, rape victims can choose to give up their babies up for adoption. Also, pregnancy resulting in rape is very rare. Also, I'm sure that rapists wanting to see/coparent the child is rare. Anyway, that doens't answer the question about abortion outside of rape which is what the debate was about. And I am not a troll; I am trying to have a reasonable debate where my opponent actually listens to the stuff I say.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 week ago
John_C_1812
All obligation to child stem from citizen ship and not right, how they are created as citizen of a country or state does matter. The odds of a child that is a newborn pass into any State or County by past border check, applying for citizen ship, as a newborn to become a citizen of that country is slight, rare, and the general exception to any child birth citizenship.

What is not said is it is woman who violates the privacy rights of other woman by failing to create a United States on the behalf of all woman. This as a goal to conduct covert Civil War against the United Sates Constitution. As the United States Constitution hs been used as a blue print to point out a series of issue from female President to abortion as being Illegal s they had been presented to the United Sates of America from International foreign interests.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 week ago
John_C_1812
The common mistake of abortion is it is murder. When in fact it is a self-incrimination to murder. This means there is a 50% changes the woman is asking for public permission to conduct a capital sentence without judicial separation to protect the general welfare.

Could the self-incrimination be removed from abortion to create a state of agreement which does not require everyone to take part in a Capital Punishment that is publicly described as Death Sentence without a trial to protect the general welfare?
Posted by Arganger 1 week ago
Arganger
@missmedic before 1867 a woman couldn't just hand a newborn over to someone to take care of.
Posted by missmedic 1 week ago
missmedic
A common anti-abortion (AKA pro life) claim is that there"s no difference between a newborn and a 9-month fetus, therefore a fetus should have legal rights. But a fetus is inside the woman and completely dependent on her, which makes all the difference in the world. A pregnant woman cannot hand over her fetus to someone else to take care of, like she could with a newborn. Further, pregnancy has a major effect on a woman"s body and emotional state, and every pregnancy carries some risk of serious complication or death. The crucial decision to take on that risk"no matter how small"can only be decided by the pregnant woman herself.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 17djones 4 days ago
17djones
pi3.14NKJVPrewratherTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:42 
Reasons for voting decision: I am anti-abortion, but I do tend to keep an open mind about stuff like this. Anyway.... Breakdown of points: Conduct: this one was tied due to them both kind of going at each other's throats a little. Spelling/Grammar: This goes to CON due to PRO constantly misspelling her words and punctuation marks in the wrong places. Arguments: Again, this goes to CON due to them bringing up a lot of facts whereas PRO did little to nothing to refute their statements. Although the article was a nice touch, PRO didn't expand on it and failed to counter CON's argument. Sources: This goes to PRO, as I stated my reason above. But again, disappointed in the fact that all she did was show an article and boast about how that refutes all CON's arguments, when it really didn't. And although i'm not exactly sure how reliable Atlantic is (the source PRO used) , it's the only source provided.
Vote Placed by ApotheosisOrangutan 5 days ago
ApotheosisOrangutan
pi3.14NKJVPrewratherTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Abortion is something I agree with, and I agreed with Pro's points. However, even though my bias prevents my views from changing, there was much to consider. For one, both seemed to have hostile and immature conduct, and I can provide evidence if this is wanted. Con's spelling and grammar were definitely better, as there were many mistakes in Pro's writing. Though I disagree with Con's views, their points were more convincing. As Pro was the only one to cite sources, I was forced to give them the reliable sources option, even though the URL had .com. I would have liked to see evidence from Con to prove themselves more.