The Instigator
CayleURC
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
ELDRITCH
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

If you are a true Christian, then you cannot believe Abortion is not Murder.

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 3 votes the winner is...
ELDRITCH
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/13/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 555 times Debate No: 65072
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

CayleURC

Pro

First round is for acceptance. First time ever debating. :) All Bible quotes must be from the New King James Version or the English Standard Version.
ELDRITCH

Con

Though I am not a christian, I'm familiar enough with scripture from my christian upbringing to feel confident enough in answering, and I feel that answering this does the world good by encouraging reproductive rights for women. I hope this remains civil and that we both walk away from this discussion more intelligent people.
Debate Round No. 1
CayleURC

Pro

Well this is very hard to argue with someone who is not strong in the Christian faith since the title was "If you are a true Christian, than you cannot believe abortion is not murder" but we shall have a go at it anyway.
Assuming you are a true Christian, you believe that the Bible is infallible and completely credible. Therefore you believe all the verses in the Bible are true.

Nowhere in the Bible is abortion mentioned specifically. That silence may seem to leave room for Christians to hold different opinions as to the morality of abortion while remaining faithful to the teachings of Scripture. Yet within Christianity an interesting alignment has developed on this issue. Nearly all churches and groups that view the Bible as the unerring Word of God also view abortion in all or nearly all instances as immoral. By contrast, nearly all churches and groups that view the Bible as a fallible human witness to God view abortion as a matter of personal choice rather than of objective morality.1 It seems reasonable to conclude that biblical values (at least some of which are shared by some non-Christians) inform the position that abortion is immoral, while the opposing view is in some respects out of keeping with biblical ethics. This article supports this conclusion by setting forth a biblical case against abortion.2

First, a brief comment about terminology is in order. Those who say that abortion is immoral label their position pro-life, indicating that for them the issue is not women"s rights but the life of the unborn. Those who argue that abortion is not generally immoral label their view pro-choice, emphasizing their belief that the issue is the right of women to choose whether to continue their pregnancy or end it by abortion. These terms will be used, since they are the labels each side prefers to use for themselves.

Premise 1: Intentionally killing a human being is always morally wrong
Premise 2: Abortion is the intentional killing of a human being
Premise 3: Therefore, Abortion is morally wrong

For the Christian, the first premise of the basic pro-life argument is directly warranted in the sixth commandment: "You shall not murder" (Exod. 20:13). The Bible does not specify all classes of human beings who may not be murdered"that is, it does not bother saying, "You shall not murder women, people of color, old people, infants, deformed people, retarded people," and so forth; it covers all the bases by the universal prohibition against murder. Nor was it necessary for the Bible to say, "You shall not murder the unborn." As Randy Alcorn puts it, "All that was necessary to prohibit an abortion was the command, "You shall not murder.""

In biblical teaching, murder is prohibited because humans are created in the image of God. The classic text on this point is Genesis 9:6:
Whoever sheds man"s blood,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
He made man.

This text is extremely important for the abortion debate because it makes certain crucial points explicit. First, all human beings are made in God"s image. The word translated "man" is "Adam, a Hebrew word which simply means "human being" or "humanity." The same word is used in Genesis 1:26-27, which says that God created "Adam in his image"and states specifically that this includes both male and female. Thus, if the unborn are human beings, killing them is forbidden because it is an attack on the image of God.

Second, the prohibition against murder does not forbid killing nonhuman animals. In the immediate context of Genesis 9, God specifically gives humanity permission to kill animals and eat their meat (vv. 2-3). Pro-choice writer Stephen Asma is therefore mistaken when he claims that the person who opposes abortion on the grounds of the "sanctity of life" does not realize that on those grounds he "must now sin nightly as he devours his sacred sirloin." It is not all life that the pro-life movement regards as sacred, but all human life. The Hebrew word for "kill" or "murder" in the sixth commandment, r"tsach, in some forty occurrences in the Old Testament is never used to refer to the killing of animals, but always to the killing of human beings. The same is true for the Greek word phoneu", which is used in the New Testament whenever it quotes the sixth commandment. Both the Hebrew and Greek languages used other words when referring to the killing of animals for food or in sacrifice.

Third, the prohibition against murder forbids killing innocent human beings. In Genesis 9:6, human beings who are guilty of murder are themselves subject to having their life taken away by man. This makes it clear that the prohibition against murder is a command prohibiting the taking of life away from human beings who have not killed and are not threatening to kill other human beings. It does not forbid killing in self-defense or the use of lethal force by police, soldiers, or executioners. Here again, it is worth noting that the Hebrew r"tsach and the Greek phoneu" are never used in the Bible to refer to killing in war. Therefore, pro-life advocates are not being inconsistent when they oppose abortion but endorse capital punishment and military force. The pro-life claim is not that it is always wrong for human beings to kill other human beings, but that it is always wrong for human beings to kill innocent human beings. Some pro-life advocates do oppose capital punishment and warfare, and believe this position is a more thoroughly ethical stance, but those who do not take this approach are perfectly consistent with their premise.

Though Christians may disagree whether it is ever morally right to kill murderers, it should be beyond controversy that in biblical ethics killing human beings who have done no harm to others is always morally wrong. This is the first premise of the basic pro-life argument.

If the first premise of the pro-life argument cannot be disproved, the only way left to refute it is to disprove the second premise, which is that abortion, except in cases where the mother"s life is in danger, is the intentional killing of an innocent human being. Pro-choice advocates rarely claim that the unborn are guilty or that abortion is not intended to kill the unborn. Thus, pro-choice advocates seem to have only one way to escape the argument: to show that the unborn are not (or probably are not) human beings.

The Unborn as Human Beings
As stated here, the basic pro-life argument refers in both premises to human beings, not, as is most often done, to human persons. It is common for the abortion debate to be framed in terms of the personhood of the unborn. Pro-life advocates routinely defend the claim that the unborn are persons, and many pro-choice advocates argue that abortion is morally permissible because the unborn are not persons.

The trouble with making personhood the decisive issue in the abortion debate is that contemporary society does not have a consensus view of what personhood is. Some people define personhood in terms of the developed characteristics of self-awareness, individuality, rational thought, the capacity for moral choice, and so forth. Defining personhood in this way virtually guarantees that the unborn will not be considered persons, but arguably six-month-old infants will not qualify as persons either. Others define personhood as the possession of an individual soul or spirit distinct from the body. The trouble with this way of defining personhood is that there is no societal unanimity as to whether such things as souls exist, let alone when they become part of the human being.

Although Christians are right when they defend the claim that the unborn should be regarded as persons from the moment of conception, it might be prudent to avoid the term "person" and make the simpler and more direct argument that the unborn should not be killed because they are human beings. After all, the Bible does not use the word "person" in Genesis 1:26-27 or 9:6 but speaks instead of human beings, "adam, as created in God"s image and possessing life that is not to be violated. It is therefore unnecessary to defend a particular view of personhood or to argue its applicability to the unborn at any stage of development (for example, by citing Psalm 139) in order to argue that the law should protect the life of the unborn. All that is necessary is to defend the claim that the unborn are human beings.

That claim is now easy to defend"which is why many pro-choice advocates want to keep the discussion on the more debatable concept of personhood. It is a scientifically certain fact that the event of conception (or, perhaps more narrowly, fertilization) is the first event in the history of the human being. Prior to conception, what exists are a mother"s egg and a father"s sperm. When fertilization is complete a new human being is brought into existence that is genetically distinct from the mother and father and that exists as a distinct entity. Therefore, from the moment of conception what exists is a human being with potential for growth and full realization.7

Given that the unborn are human beings from the moment of conception, it follows directly that killing them for any reason other than in an attempt to save someone else"s life (that is, the mother"s life) is forbidden by the sixth commandment. It is unnecessary to prove that the unborn are "persons" in order to claim that their lives ought to be protected by law. The only thing needed is to point out that they are human beings. Let those who would defend abortion as a legal right say, if they can (and if they dare), that it is permissible to kill some innocent human beings. Few pro-choice advocates are willing to say this"at least not directly and openly.
ELDRITCH

Con

God in the bible clearly does not value the lives of infants. See verses like 2 Samuel 12:14, where god promises to kill the children of the enemies of Israel as punishment. In fact, there's even a biblical way of having an abortion. The book of numbers, chapter 5, verses 19 through 31 describe a punishment wherein a woman is given a bitter concoction to drink, that will kill her fetus if she has cheated. I doubt that it was so selective in reality, but even if it actually did target only adulterers, the point is still that this is abortion sanctioned by mosaic law.

If the premise that killing a fetus must always be wrong is true, than your god has also done wrong. But if the bible is the literal word of god, god is infallible. So one or the other must be false, which is it?

In addition, you have failed to substantiate the claim that one is not a "true" Christian if they support abortion. What is a true Christian? Why do you think that a true Christian must be a conservative literalist? Are Catholics not true Christians, since they don't view genesis as literal?
Debate Round No. 2
CayleURC

Pro

CayleURC forfeited this round.
ELDRITCH

Con

My opponent has forfeited and failed to justify his claims or address my rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zanomi3 2 years ago
Zanomi3
Uh oh... guess what... Pro plagiarized the entire argument. Bummer. Nice try, CayleURC

http://www.reasons.org...
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
I do not know how a person who has accepted the very life of God, been reborn into the righteousness of Jesus and at the same time think that killing babies in the womb is acceptable in any circumstance.

I would have to conclude that they are just religious, and going to church how many times a week will not change that.All that decision says is they are outside of the life of God.And spiritual death is lodged in them.

Now a woman who did make that decision needs to know that God is not holding that against them and He loves them and is willing to accept them into his life.But Like Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery. " Neither do I condemn you, but go and sin no more."
Posted by CayleURC 2 years ago
CayleURC
Smartkid, what are you saying? I really try to as perfect as I can, but every human being has his shortcomings. It is our sinful nature. I do care if I sin and I repent after I know I have do wrong. I'm pretty sure Christians worship the same God as you. And I do go to church every single Sunday, twice actually. I'm only 16 years old, but I know way better than to make vague assumptions such as yours.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
God says in Deuteronomy, " I set before you life and death, blessing and curse, therefore YOU choose life that you and your seed may live".

If a person sees children as a curse, they are not Christian.That is the only way any mother could ever kill her unborn child. They may be a religious person. Go to church. Do whatever the rituals tell them. But they are not in God's family.They are in the family of the unholy one.
Posted by SmartKid414 2 years ago
SmartKid414
Wtf is this. I'm Catholic and I think abortion is a murder because you are still killing child aren't you. A child that still has a world to go through. You real or fake Christians don't care if u do a sin or not. You don't worship god and go to CHURCH EVERY SUNDAY. Yes I'm just a 14 year old kid .-.
Posted by CayleURC 2 years ago
CayleURC
I just assumed these were the two most popular true versions of the Bible.
Posted by Mr.Lee 2 years ago
Mr.Lee
Why the NKJV? I use the KJV myself.
Posted by Zanomi3 2 years ago
Zanomi3
Dang Bubba, you are completely right haha.
Posted by CayleURC 2 years ago
CayleURC
Never heard of it until now. Very interesting, thank you!
Posted by Bubbagump282 2 years ago
Bubbagump282
"No True Scotsman Fallacy"
Prime example right here, Cayle.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Zanomi3 2 years ago
Zanomi3
CayleURCELDRITCHTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm going to give all points except Spelling to Con. Conduct, not only because of the True Scotsman Fallacy (thanks Bubbagump282), but also for copying the entire argument (http://www.reasons.org/articles/argument-for-the-silent-a-biblical-case-against-abortion). Arguments, in that case, go to Con because Con's arguments were the only true arguments/rebuttals presented. Sources goes to Con, not only for his use of the Bible, but also simply because Pro plagiarized (negative sources, in a way).
Vote Placed by mdc32 2 years ago
mdc32
CayleURCELDRITCHTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro seemingly has BoP, which he does not fulfill. This gives arguments to Con. Also, Con gets conduct because of forfeiture.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 2 years ago
Gabe1e
CayleURCELDRITCHTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made more convincing arguments. Con just rebutted the argument, and then didn't even argue. If he did argue at the end instead of trying to point out his opponent should lose, I would put him as more convincing.