Biblical Debate: Abortion
| Started: | 3/25/2012 | Category: | Religion |
| Updated: | 1 year ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 853 times | Debate No: | 22326 |
 Con I wish to debate a Christian on whether or not Abortion is a sin. ~~Rules~~ 8,000 Characters The only source that can be used is the New King James Version Bible. No Somantics.  Pro First off, I will acknowledge that I have never debated over abortion biblically, so if I do bad, that is my excuse >:D I accept this debate, the Bible is not opposed to abortion. I ask that my opponent keeps his arguments organized as well, and does not clutter them up, or I will have trouble reading them. So, let's keep our arguments short, simple, to the point, and try to make them easy for the voters and us to read! Good Luck |
 |
|
Con
My argument goes as follows:
P1: A fetus is a innocent human being. P2: Killing a innocent human being is wrong according to the Bible. C: Therefore, abortion is prima facie morally wrong according to the Bible.
P1: Most Pro-Choice Christians claim that a fetus is not human, but merely just a bag of cells. However, the Bible states clealy that all unborn children are both human and living. It is written in Exodus 21: 22-25: “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Now it is clear that the Bible considers the unborn to be a human, cause if the penalty is death for a person that is the chief cause of death for an unborn child, then this makes it clear that the unborn child has the same value as a born child. If it was not then the Bible would not put the same penalty for an unborns killing as a born childs killing. I will state more biblical evidence that makes it clear that a fetus is a living human being:
Jeremiah 1:5 says: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” Anyone who looks at this verse can tell the obvious. It tells that people that are unborn have a purpose and are already in contact with God. This means that the person before is birth is a human.
P2: It is no doubt that it has always been a sin to kill those that have done nothing worthy of death. The Bible is filled with many passages that reflect upon this. However, I will only bstate a few. I will start with the most widelt used: The sixth commandment. Exodus 20:13 says: 'Thou shalt not murder.' This is point blank evidence that the killing of a inncocent human being is not tolertated in scripture. It is so untolerated that scripture actually puts the harshest of all penalties on the people who comment the crime. Genesis 9:6 states: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image. So if God commands those who murder to be put to death then God is obviously against murder.
Conclusion The Biblical Passages have stated pretty clearly that God considers that a Human fetus is indeed alive. It states that to killi it without proper cause is murder. Therefore, I have proven the Bible and God are very much against abortion and abortion is sin,
I will await my opponent's response. Pro Thanks Con for your swift response! God does not consider it murder to kill a fetus, he had shown it numerous times and has done it himself. God finds it fine to see the fetuses in Heaven. |
 |
|
Con I thank my opponent for his response.
~~Defense~~ D1: My opponent has misinterperated the scripture. By saying ' When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm'the passage means that neither the baby nor his/her's mother is unharmed then the men would be just fined. It is an obvious fact that pregant women can be forced into early labor and still give birth to a healthy child. So, the whole scripture means that if a man/woman hits (or rather forces a woman into early labor) and the baby and the mother are both alright then he/she would be subjegated to whatever fines the father mite demand however, if the mother or the baby are harmed then the penalty would be death. So, this clearly states the unborn is just as human as the born. D2: My opponent is wrong yet again. Even though this particular verse that I have stated is toward Jeremiah the Prophet, Acts 10:34 states that ' God is no respecter of persons'. This means he does not show partiality to anyone. If he has a specifit plan for Jeremiah and consecrates him before he was even formed, then God also does the same with everyother person. So my next case is for personhood still stands. ~~Rebuttels~~ Ok so, before I state my first rebuttel I would like to point out the problem of his first case. He basically states that since God killed fetuses then we can too. However, if this were true then since God destroyed the world and extermintated two cities then we should too right? No! Because God is the master and we are merely servents. If God has a reason for doing something then He can however, His reasoning and ours are totally different. Now my first rebuttel: R1: My opponent brings up numbers 31:15-17. However if He were to take a look at the rest of the chapter (and the other chapters of the book itself) he would see that the people that the Israelites were ordered to kill were a people who had been harrassing the Israelites for years so, in order to rid themselves of the threat they had to 'erase' them (exterminate them). Do take a look at that it wasn't the fact that people were fetuses or the preganant woman didn't want their babies it was a military strike. As for the next verse, this merely is a rhetorical question being asked to the Lord. Thus, this contention is refuted. R2: My opponent now states that since the Jews didn't put a money value on a baby that was before a month old. However, anyone who knows about the state and pregnancies will know that a bbay that has not been born yet or has been proven to be able to survive is of no use to the state so that is the reason for the money value. Also, I would like to point out that Adam was only a clump of dirt until God breathed life into him and Fetuses do breath oxygen just not through normal ways until their umbilical courd is cut. Therefore, this contenion is also refuted. I will now await my oppoennt's response. Pro ----Rebuttals---- "When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." --- Exodus 21: 22-25 This is basically where our debate is centered upon. Let's analyze this to get the full meaning of this passage, shall we? "When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out," Basically, a miscarriage. Or in other words a premature birth. You say: ---------"It is an obvious fact that pregant women can be forced into early labor and still give birth to a healthy child." Not true. The earlier a baby is born, the severity of health problems increases. It is [premature births] the most frequent cause of infant deaths. Those who DO survive usually face intellectual disability, vision and hearing loss, etc. The source I shall list is of true research: http://www.cdc.gov... (source used to confirm facts ONLY) "but there is no harm" The passage is talking about the woman. "the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine." So, in the Bible it says that if an abortion is forced, the man who caused it to occur must pay a fine. "But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." This is concerning the harmed woman. Fetuses do not have teeth, so this PROVES that the passage is only punishing a forced abortion with a fine, and punishing a woman's injury with something more fair. Conclusion: There is a penalty if a man causes a miscarriage of a woman while in a quarrel. The penalty is a FINE. So, according to the Bible, the unborn "child", is JUST A PIECE OF PROPERTY! My opponent is wrong yet again. Even though this particular verse that I have stated is toward Jeremiah the Prophet, Acts 10:34 states that ' God is no respecter of persons' God may find the fetus in his image, but he doesn't put much emphasis on it. Why is this? Because if God sincerely *did* care, God would've put a heavier penalty for getting rid of a fetus. God doesn't even mention a punishment for an abortion that a woman wants. God doesn't give the same punishment for aborting a fetus the same punishment as killing a fully grown human. Ok so, before I state my first rebuttel I would like to point out the problem of his first case. He basically states that since God killed fetuses then we can too. This was basically a side argument that shows that God is not really concerned with abortion. The fact that the Bible lists no penalty for abortion, and has advocated for it, proves that abortion is Biblical. In Job 3:2-4,11-19, Job strongly states that the quality of life is as or more important than being born. This relates to the abortion argument. Later, in Job 10:18-19, Job reiterates again the importance of the quality of life, not just being born. As a way to improve our quality of life, abortion is defended here. Since these passages are somewhat lengthely, I will list some of the passages I quoted: "Cursed be the day of my birth, and cursed be the night I was conceived. Let that day be turned into darkness. Let it be lost even to God on high, and let it be shrouded in darkness..." "Why didn't I die at birth as I came from the womb? Why did my mother let me live? Why did she nurse me at her breasts? For if I had died at birth, I would be at piece now, asleep and at rest. I would rest with the world's kings and prime ministers, famous for their great construction projects..." Conclusion: The Bible shows that abortion is not morally wrong, as it shows that quality of life is more important then life itself. "My opponent now states that since the Jews didn't put a money value on a baby that was before a month old. However, anyone who knows about the state and pregnancies will know that a bbay that has not been born yet or has been proven to be able to survive is of no use to the state so that is the reason for the money value." So at a month it suddenly changes? No, God didn't view a fetus as a person. Conclusion: God did not count a fetus as a person. He did not include fetuses in the count in the census' he commanded be taken. God did not punish an abortion when it occured, unless the woman was forced to have a miscarriage. God DOES NOT view a FETUS as HUMAN PERSON! So, Biblically, abortion is not morally wrong, and actually is helpful in some cases because the quality of life matters as much or more than the length of life. |
 |
|
Con I thank my opponent for his really intelligent response however, I must apologize because I will not be able to finish this debate. I am due to leave for North Carolina in a few hours and I will not have internet. So I will concede for now. Pro Thanks CON for the debate. It really helped me develop my position on this issue. Vote PRO |
 |
| Deathbeforedishonour | Contra | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - |  | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 7 |
| Deathbeforedishonour | Contra | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
| Deathbeforedishonour | Contra | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 5 |
| Deathbeforedishonour | Contra | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 1 |
My impression is that neither party parried the other's arguments well.
Firstguy didn't manage to meet the burden of proof. I don't know what either party thinks sin is. Maybe it was cleaver of Secondguy not to bring it up since Firstguy didn't. Leave Firstguy unaware that he isn't addressing a critical issue.
If I'd voted on the merits rather than on the forfeit, I'd have still voted for Secondguy.
- Secondguy points out that some embryonic deaths were done at god's orders. They probably weren't sins at all, then, right? And Firstguy's claim that the bible opposes killing embryos is solidly refuted, right? I think this is Secondguy's best move, and I don't see how Firstguy could get around it, not that he'll try.
- Secondguy says god doesn't put a money value on children until they're a month old. Therefore, god doesn't think even neonates are human people, let alone embryos. This is interesting. Not compelling, but interesting. Firstguy respond by pointing out that babies are human beings, regardless of age, and that killing babies is wrong, regardless of age, so the fact that the bible doesn't baby human beings doesn't mean that embryos aren't human beings just because they aren't charged for either.
- The census only counted people older than a month? Also interesting, but also vulnerable to the above criticism.
- Secondguy starts talking about persons, as in, "A fetus is not a person." It's a good move, but late, and not explained, and so without oomph. It's people we want to protect, not humans. We kill brain dead humans because they are not people. Sperm cells are human, but they aren't people. Zygotes and embryos too. But Secondguy doesn't develop this. My impression is that Secondguy wasn't actually making a move here, but just got tired of typing "human."
- "God finds it fine to see the fetuses in Heaven"? Isn't this a concession that fetuses are people? It seems to me a really bad move, opening Secondguy up to the charge that killing a fetus is no different from killing actual people. But Secondguy would still (had Firstguy made that move) have his argument that some people are okay to kill because god does it all the time, and because god sometimes orders people to kill each other.
Of course, if Secondguy made that argument, Firstguy would have to talk about sin.
===continued===
- Secondguy starts off talking about fetuses. This is a tactical error. Babies, actual born people, we don't get to kill. And sperm cells, nothing like people, we do get to kill. Between there is a continuum from sperm-like to baby-like. Firstguy's focus should be on fetuses, the baby-like end of the spectrum. Secondguy's focus should be on the other end: zygotes, or at least embryos.
- Secondguy comes up with another interpretation for Firstguy's bible quote. Doesn't agree with me or Firstguy. That's cool, but it's not a slam dunk.
- The line about fetuses not having teeth seems to me wrong, turnable. I mean, maybe they don't, but would I bet on it? I'll bet they do have teeth, just not full size, and not protruding from the gums yet. If only Secondguy were talking about embryos or zygotes, then he'd be on solid ground.
And I just don't buy the fetuses-don't-have-teeth interpretation anyway. It also says you pay "burn for burn" if you hit a pregnant woman's belly and make her abort. Where do burns come into it? The speaker was just ranting, right? The burns aren't literal, so neither are the teeth. The tooth-for-tooth thing is just an example of getting payback in kind.
- Secondguy keeps saying "Concensus," and I want to quote Fezzik, from _The Princess Bride_: Stop saying that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
- Secondguy says god is the largest abortionist, because of spontaneous abortions. It's an okay argument, I guess. Firstguy should say god can kill even though we can't, because of the way sin works (not that Firstguy would ever stoop to talking about sin in a debate about sin).
===continued===
- Firstguy still hasn't mentioned sin.
- Imagine that god wanted to tell you not to kill. He might say, "Thou shalt not kill." Pretty straightforward. Now imagine god wanted to tell you not to abort. "Thou shalt not abort," right?
But let's imagine that Firstguy's argument is good, and let's see what "Thou shalt not kill" would look like: "If two guys get in a fight, and if, during that fight, one of them accidentally kills someone other than the person that he's fighting, then he can be punished by the victim's family."
If you meant "Thou shalt not kill," would you say, "If two guys get in a fight, and if, during that fight, one of them accidentally kills someone other than the person that he's fighting, then he can be punished by the victim's family." No, you wouldn't say that. If "Thou shalt not kill" was your meaning, you wouldn't pussyfoot around it with an opaque metonymy.
What Firstguy's quotation seems to mean is that if you mess with your neighbor's family planning, he gets to mess you up.
And what is Firstguy trying to do? Trying to use that quotation to mess with people's family planning.
Therefore, according to Firstguys logic (assuming I understand Firstguy's logic) his very argument is a sin.
= Well, these are all my reactions to Firstguy's case. Secondguy ought to have an easy time with it. Let's see how he did.
===continued===
Firstguy offers an argument that parodies like this:
P1: The bible pronounces death for sassing your parents, inviting people to the wrong church, being a Midianite, living in the time of Noah, living in the town of Gomorrah, being a witch, telling someone he's bald, eating fruit, and many many other things.
P2: The bible pronounces death for preventing someone from having a healthy baby.
C: Therefore, god likens causing an abortion to making observations about baldness.
- Firstguy offers another bible quote that doesn't support him at all: "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you." Before. Before he formed him in the womb. Not, "Once I formed you in the womb," but before. So we're talking at least sperm cells again, right? Actually, with an omniscient god, this really harks all the way back to "Let there be light."
"Anyone who looks at this verse can tell the obvious," that it doesn't support Firstguy's case.
- Firstguy says, "It is no doubt that it has always been a sin to kill those that have done nothing worthy of death." He must be thinking of some other god. Midianites again, right? And the joyous dashing of babies against the rocks? And the great flood. It's an unsupportable claim.
- Firstguy quotes "Thou shalt not murder." But if he wants to stretch that to cover abortions, he needs to talk about abortions. He needs a bible quote saying abortions fall under that proscription.
- Firstguy says, "The Biblical Passages have stated pretty clearly that God considers that a Human fetus is indeed alive." Well it is alive, but Firstguy never offered us god's opinion that it is alive. He simply hasn't made his case.
- He says the bible says killing fetuses "without proper cause" is murder, but he doesn't say why we should believe that, or what is proper cause.
He's got me half convinced that the bible does not proscribe abortion. If it did, he's have showed us the evidence.
===continued===
- First, there's no resolution, so we can't tell what Con is against. It's pointlessly confusing. It caused one person to accidentally vote for the wrong person, and it probably made the rest of us work hard for no good reason.
In the future, just state your resolution, "Resolved, abortion is a sin according to the New King James Bible," and then be Pro. Make everybody's life easier.
Pro is the one who is supports and defends the truth of the resolution.
- So the debate is about what the word "sin" means, and Pro, I mean Con, says "No Somantics." Pretty funny. It's an inherently semantic debate.
- Con, I mean Pro, says, "I accept this debate, the Bible is not opposed to abortion." Pro--darn it--Con had the burden of proof up to this point. But did, uh, the second party offer to share the burden of proof at this point? I'm going to say no, but I couldn't fault anyone who called it the other way.
- The first guy says, "My argument goes as follows: P1: ... P2: ... P3: ..." and never mentions sin. What are we supposed to vote on? What is the second guy supposed to refute?
- The premises didn't includes a "prima facia," so why did the first guy stick one into the conclusion?
P1: All men are mortal.
P2: Socrates is a man.
C: Therefore, Socrates is prima facia mortal.
It's just weird.
- First guy says, "all unborn children are both human and living." Nobody can argue against that. But firstguy thinks he can jump from human and living to "a human being." That's wildly inaccurate. a sperm cell is human too, and it is living, but that doesn't make it a human being.
- Firstguy offers up a weird bible quote which seems to say that if you cause someone to abort, her husband gets to make your wife abort. Firstguy wants to style this as an argument _against_ abortion.
===continued===
Just change your vote. Vote again. Your old vote will be erased, and your new vote will supplant it.
I don't get what you are saying, my verses were more expansive than CON's. Plus, I am a political debater, just trying a different kind of debate.