The Instigator
TheChristian
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
ScarletAtheist
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Abortions are murder because a baby didn't choose to be born, so a mother has no right to kill it

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...
TheChristian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,544 times Debate No: 66487
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (33)
Votes (3)

 

TheChristian

Pro

First is acceptance,no sources, footnotes for round 5 or, past then, comments, no repeat comments or mini debates in comments. Con is for abortion,pro is for.
ScarletAtheist

Con

I gladly accept this debate. Please do start by defining terms during your turn, like murder, baby, etc., as I'm sure we have disagreements on what each term means.

ScarletAtheist
Debate Round No. 1
TheChristian

Pro

Baby-cell of human
Murder-termination of a PERSON
For arguments sake, lets start with rape- not the babys fault. Would you punish a woman for being raped? Would you punish a rape baby? Incest-same argument.
For consentual- its sheer irresponsibility. For health of the mother- C section is acceptable with almost no chance for complications. So would you punish a victim for a crime? No. So a parent,even if it gives it up for adoption, should at least have it. I believe ive covered everything necessary for this round, and please only debate what I have listed in this and other rounds in their respective rounds except for round 5. Thank you for accepting this debate, i look forward to an interesting debate,and would you kill a newborn baby? No.
ScarletAtheist

Con

ScarletAtheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
TheChristian

Pro

As my opponent has forfeited, it would be bad manners to post a new argument. So consider me to resubmitted tge same argument for my opponent to debate
ScarletAtheist

Con

ScarletAtheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
TheChristian

Pro

While this is bad manners, abortion is unconstitutional, because it denies the right to life by preventing the baby-regardless of the term used scientificly- the right to life. My oponent eill probably forefeit, so vote pro.
ScarletAtheist

Con

To start off, I would like to apologize to my opponent, as I am sure we would have had a much more stimulating and in-depth debate if I actually submitted some of my arguments. I am quite sorry.

To begin, my opponent and I have incredibly different definitions for the mentioned terms, and most likely other terms that I will mention later. Here are my definitions:

Baby: a young child, especially one newly born

Fetus: an unborn offspring of (in this case) a human, particularly past the eighth week of conception

Abortion: the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy

Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another

Unconstitutional: the act of going against the Constitution

Now that I"ve defined the terms in a hopefully more precise manner, I"ll start my argument.

Abortion, as my opponent believes, is murder. Murder, by my definition, is the killing of another human being. My opponent does not make a differing definition for abortion and murder, as he believes that abortion is murder. The problem with his argument is that he probably feels fetuses are considered human beings. I hold a different stance: fetuses are not people, as they have not yet reached eight weeks of development, and have not been born. I do think after eight weeks, abortions are not necessarily the best course of action. This being said, I do feel a woman has the right to abort a potential child, no matter how far along her pregnancy, as she has not only the right to bodily autonomy, but also the right to prevent an otherwise possibly difficult life for both her and her child.

As for my opponent"s grotesque feelings on rape, I do not think the child from the pregnancy is to blame, as isn't the mother; this does not mean the mother has to go through with her pregnancy. As for consensual sex, as I stated earlier, abortion may not be the best means of ridding a child out of one"s life, but it doesn't mean it is immoral, and especially unconstitutional.

To address my opponent"s view of abortion as unconstitutional, nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it say one cannot abort an offspring. Because a fetus is not a human being, it has no right to life. Even when a fetus is eight weeks or more along in a pregnancy, the woman has more say in her life than a fetus could ever possibly have.

*By the way, I"d like to address one particularly humorous thing my opponent has said in this debate: his definition of a baby. Under his definition, we are all made of trillions of babies! Just thought that be a fun thing to point out to my opponent, as I think he might need to work on his definitions in the future.

** To my opponent, I"d love to discuss definitions of terms in the comments, as not to waste space in our debate. I"m afraid I've done enough of that already!

ScarletAtheist
Debate Round No. 4
TheChristian

Pro

Ok, first off, thanks for replying to my debate, and adoption could be used to ignore pain, and for incest my argument is the same, and in case it wasn't clear, a single human cell is a human. It has human DNA. It is therefore murder, and murder is unconstitutional `right to life(on twitter, #righttolife and #abortion)`also, i would be willing to redo this debate, in longer form.I agree with all of your terms other than fetus, as that violates my true definition of human, abortion denies the inalienable right of life- obvious
Liberty- freedom, by denial of the right to be even existing, denies freedom to do anything. If you were to view human embryos- term for single-cells of babies - (the title says human, evidence to support my position) they look and have the DNA of humans.
Persuit of Happiness-American Dream- does not allow existence therefore takes away tgis right.
Therefore, i rebutt all of my opponent`s arguments
Con is Negated
Thanks for the debate, message me if you wish to redo this debate.
Good luck
ScarletAtheist

Con

What my opponent seems to not understand is that a fetus and a human are very different things. A two week old embryo in a woman's body should not and does not have any right, especially when compared to the rights of a grown women. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" apply to people, not embryos, which by the way are fertilized eggs, not "single-cells of a human" as my opponent had said. Women hold the right to have an abortion both constitutionally and morally, as this right is not only protected under the law, but also has to do with a woman"s ability to fulfill bodily autonomy and her control of her life.

Thanks TheChristian for starting this debate. It was fun!

*To Voters: Please do read both of our arguments. We as people tend to be myopic in nature when it comes to strongly held beliefs, such as abortion. Do give each argument a close observation, followed by some reading on the topic if you so please. Do feel free to leave comments: I love to hear new points of concern on the topic and other topics as well.

ScarletAtheist
Debate Round No. 5
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by palmkrawler 1 year ago
palmkrawler
What does the Bible have to do with anything? It's a fiction book written by humans that makes
all kinds of bizarre and un-testable claims. It also makes wild claims about itself that any book can do which does not make the claims true.

No, Evolution does NOT give meaning for the origin of life and it was never meant to. Evolution
explains how life evolves over time which assumes there was already life.

But, Evolution is one of the best tested, best documented, very sound scientific theories that
we have. Notice I said "scientific theory"....not just a plain old theory. There is a discrete difference.

Books on Evolution don't claim it's true just because it's written in the book. It's based on evidence that anyone can verify and check. You know..REAL evidence.
Posted by TheChristian 2 years ago
TheChristian
Simple- "and the two (man and wife) became one flesh- the bible, in multiple verses. They could not donate before, then they can. Evolution does not give an origin for life. Why cant animals talk? Creation. This is my final word, i will not go any farther, or reply to you again.
Posted by ScarletAtheist 2 years ago
ScarletAtheist
TheChristian, please explain both parts of your last comment, as I find the second part to be wrong. People with different blood types can exchange organs, such as a person with BT A donating an organ to someone with BT AB, but I am unsure of any religion explaining this phenomenon.

ScarletAtheist
Posted by TheChristian 2 years ago
TheChristian
And evolution is reasonable? Religion explains how spouses with different blood types can donate organs to eachother
Posted by palmkrawler 2 years ago
palmkrawler
Religion and God are unreasonable beliefs because they invokes magic and hocus pocus.
Posted by TheChristian 2 years ago
TheChristian
To statemy reasonable belief
Posted by ScarletAtheist 2 years ago
ScarletAtheist
Then why did you bring it up to begin with?

ScarletAtheist
Posted by TheChristian 2 years ago
TheChristian
I do not care. I am not going to argue my religion.
Posted by ScarletAtheist 2 years ago
ScarletAtheist
No. A theory is the most graduated point at which a hypothesis has been repeatedly examined several times, and has been supported through observation. A theory is backed up by a considerable body of evidence, and serves as a basis for describing trends observed naturally. Similarly, a law is a statement describing trends observed in nature, that must hold under specified conditions without exceptions. Laws are mathematical statements, that are always apply to a rigid criteria. A law is not "better" or "more accurate and precise" than a theory. A law explains what will happen under certain circumstances, while a theory explains how it happens.

ScarletAtheist
Posted by TheChristian 2 years ago
TheChristian
Evolution is called a THEORY not a LAW. Theory- unproven law- proven. And if every person only had sex with one person. EVER,they may be less likelyto get an STD. Do not reply.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Daniel_Nemes 2 years ago
Daniel_Nemes
TheChristianScarletAtheistTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited two rounds.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 2 years ago
Zaradi
TheChristianScarletAtheistTied
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: Cvb hanspete. There's enough clash to judge.
Vote Placed by Hanspete 2 years ago
Hanspete
TheChristianScarletAtheistTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture By Con in two rounds.