The Instigator
KeytarHero
Pro (for)
Winning
34 Points
The Contender
Axiom
Con (against)
Losing
24 Points

The Bible supports the pro-life cause.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 15 votes the winner is...
KeytarHero
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/1/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,789 times Debate No: 24955
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (45)
Votes (15)

 

KeytarHero

Pro

I would like to debate the proposition that the Bible supports the pro-life position.

I've seen this topic come up quite a bit in the forums, so I'd like to officially debate it here. Ordinarily I would assume burden of proof, but for the purposes of this debate, burden of proof will be shared.

Round one is for acceptance.
Round two for opening arguments/rebuttals.
Round three for rebuttals.
Round four for rebuttals/closing statements (no new arguments).

And for anyone wishing to vote, please consider both sides of the arguments. Don't just vote for someone because they bring up a verse you like. Consider the arguments presented and all rebuttals.
Axiom

Con

I accept and look forward to enlightening discourse. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
KeytarHero

Pro

I wish to thank Con for accepting the debate, and I look forward to an enlightening exchange.

Now, it's true that the Bible doesn't actually condemn abortion. But it's a fallacy to claim that whatever the Bible doesn't expressly condemn, it condones. For example, the Bible never says we can't cut the brakes in someone's car or push them into a shark tank, yet those actions would still be wrong. Abortion was not condemned because Christians weren't aborting their children. Since the purpose of the letters in the Bible was to correct bad doctrine or behavior from believers, since no believers were aborting their children none of the New Testament authors needed to address it.

So a Biblical case for the pro-lire position goes like this:

1. All humans are made in God's image.
2. God hates the shedding of innocent blood of humans made in God's image.
3. Abortion is the shedding of innocent blood of a human made in God's image.
4. Therefore, abortion is Biblically immoral.

All humans are made in God's image.

All humans are made in the image of God. [1] This does not mean physical image, since God is a spirit. [2] Rather, this means we are made in his likeness as rational, moral agents.

The human is both a rational and a moral being. Without a moral nature there would be no true humanity, so those who would abolish the moral law would abolish humanity in the bargain. [3] As C.S. Lewis writes, "Either we are rational spirit obliged for ever to obey the absolute values of the Tao, or else we are mere nature to be kneaded and cut into new shapes for the pleasure masters who must, by hypothesis, have no motive but their own 'natural' impulses. Only the Tao provides a common human law of action which can over-arch rulers and ruled alike. A dogmatic belief in objective value is necessary to the very idea of a rule which is not tyranny or an obedience which is not slavery." [4]

All humans have an inherent capacity as rational, moral agents. This makes us valuable, as we bear (at all stages of human development) the image, that is likeness, of God.

God hates the shedding of innocent blood of humans made in God's image.

We are given a commandment, "You shall not murder." (NASB) [5] Some translations say "kill," but the word is better rendered murder. This is because not all forms of killing were condemned in the Bible. God sanctioned some wars against unbelieving nations, and he even instituted capital punishment. But these were forms of divine judgment. The Jews (and by extension, the Christians) were forbidden from taking innocent lives. When God sent the Israelites to war, it was because of the idolatry or other sinful practices of another nation. When capital punishment was used, it was always because someone was guilty of a grievous sin. No one who fell under these forms of retribution were innocent, as the unborn are.

The Israelites were told to be careful not to kill the innocent and the righteous. [6] If the innocent were ever killed, the blood of the innocent would be on their hands. [7]

Abortion is the shedding of innocent blood of humans made in God's image.

The unborn have done no wrong, especially not one deserving of death. Surely taking the life of an innocent unborn child, who still bears the likeness (image) of God based on their inherent nature as rational, moral agents, is heinous in the sight of God. If innocent unborn humans are killed, surely their blood are upon the hands of those who take their lives.

In fact, the New Testament teaches that Jesus is God Himself (the second person of the Trinity), and Jesus Himself said, "Permit the children to come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these." [8] Children are specially loved by God, and special curse was placed over those who would lead the little ones astray. [9]

I have supported each premise, therefore the conclusion logically follows.

I look forward to Con's argument.

[1] Genesis 1:26.
[2] John 4:24.
[3] Lewis, C.S., The Abolition of Man, p. 77.
[4] ibid., pp. 84-85. Note that when C.S. Lewis speaks of the Tao, he is referring to an objective moral law.
[5] Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17.
[6] Exodus 23:7.
[7] Deuteronomy 19:10.
[8] Luke 18:16.
[9] Mark 9:42.
Axiom

Con

I thank my opponent. Here we go.

My opponent states, "Now, it's true that the Bible doesn't actually condemn abortion. But it's a fallacy to claim that whatever the Bible doesn't expressly condemn, it condones."

I am not insisting the bible supports 'Pro Choice.' This may seem backdoor-tautological, but my only duty as Con is to reject the premise that the bible is 'Pro Life.' The bible may support neither and there may be no express direction either way as my opponent has stated. I'm not arguing that the bible is 'Pro Choice,' I am simply arguing that it does not support the 'Pro Life' case.

Now with that out of the way: I will first engage in rebuttal and then go on to present my own case.

All Humans Are Made In God's Image

This first point is true scripturally. I will not contest it, but it is the only point where my opponent and I find common ground. This is not a concession of argument, it simply suits my debate to also assert that all humans are made in God's Image. (1. Genesis 1:26)

I will however add that under 'all' this includes rapists, serial killers, murderers, capital criminals and the rest.

God hates the shedding of innocent blood of humans made in God's image.

Firstly, Exodus is a book of Law. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) And as a book of law in the source my opponent cites (6: Exodus 23:7) it is referring to a legal 'innocent' or 'honest one.' It is addressing legality, not transcendent truth of human nature. The passage is saying to be honest in trial and not to falsely accuse or testify against one who is innocent of the crime. (http://www.studylight.org...)

Why is the distinction between 'innocent' and those 'innocent of a specific crime' important? Because the bible is clear that after the fall there are no transcendent innocents! "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. (Rom. 5:12)."

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of god! (Romans 3:23) ALL! So this point my opponent tries to raise is a non-issue, as there are no innocents in God's eyes only in the eyes of human law (And human law allows abortion in many places). But if all are created in God's image and all have the same nature, then we can see that God clearly doesn't hate shedding the blood of 'innocent (no such thing)" humans in the verses bellow:

And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle." (Exodus 12:29)

Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Numbers 31:17)

"And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city we left none to remain:" (Deuteronomy 2:33-34)

"This is what the LORD says: Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and a ss ....' And Saul ... utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword."(1 Samuel 15:3,7-8)

In these verses, God commands his people to commit genocide, to kill infants, and to rape virgins. He commands his people to destroy sons and daughters and to take the lives of the 'innocent (per my opponent's definition.)" We can clearly see that this negates my opponent's premise that God hates the shedding of innocent blood as long as we assume that God doesn't hate anything in accordance to his nature (a perfect being cannot hate himself) and that he cannot do anything that is not in accordance to his nature. He issues command to commit genocide and murder infants, so therefore it is not hateful to his perfect being to do such things.

Abortion is the shedding of innocent blood of humans made in God's image.

And here's the rub. My opponent asserts that abortion is the shedding of innocent blood of humans made in God's image. Firstly, my opponent is making a factual claim not founded in the bible that a fetus is human. And secondly he uses the term 'innocent' as an argument from pathos rather than biblical fact. So all I really have to say is that Abortion isn't the shedding of innocent blood of humans because there are no innocents and fetuses are not human beings.

And as for my opponent's arguments concerning children: we have seen clearly that God orders the death and rape of children in the above verses. We also see that my opponent seamlessly slips from 'fetus' to 'child' quite easily--in doing this, he undermines his argument as I reject that notion that fetuses are 'children.'

And furthermore even if we were to accept this as true "If innocent unborn humans are killed, surely their blood are upon the hands of those who take their lives." My opponent is presupposing a certain violent method of abortion. I say, why not just have the umbilical cord cut and the fetus removed from the mother's belly with gentle care. If the fetus can survive on its own, let it.

My Arguments:

NOT pro-life: (http://www.evilbible.com...)

Numbers 5:11-21 "here the priest is to put the woman under this curse —“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. This is an induced abortion to rid a woman of another man’s child and an entire ritual dedicated to abortion.

“Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” Women that might be pregnant should be murdered so as to kill those who are pregnant, aborting the fetus. Numbers 31:17

God speaks an oath determining to dash the infants of Samaria to pieces and the “their women with child shall be ripped up”. Hosea 13:16

God determines it just to let the pregnant women of Tappuah to be “ripped open”. 2 Kings 15:16

Hosea 9:11-16. “Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, O Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb." Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children. God makes all the unborn children miscarry. Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally “abortion”?


This is an unpleasant business to be sure. But we can see that the biblical God is not averse to abortion, he allows and commands the death of children. Suppose you reject that. Suppose after I've provided all this evidence, you say that God is NOT in favor of abortion. Fine, say it even though you'd be wrong. But at least know that I have fulfilled my role as Con by making it clear that at least God is not exclusively supportive and the bible is not supportive of 'pro-life' doctrine.

Debate Round No. 2
KeytarHero

Pro

I thank Con for the time in putting his rebuttal together.

Premise 1

Con does not contest this point, so there is nothing more to say. Con is correct in that all means all.

Premise 2

Con seems to be confusing physical punishment with spiritual punishment. There are no innocents in God's eyes in the spiritual sense. We have all sinned and so we are all deserving of death. But not everything is punishable by death. When an abortion is performed, it is performed on an innocent human who is innocent of any wrongdoing. As I explained in my case, we are told not to murder (which is to kill in cold blood). Therefore abortion is not permitted Biblically because the unborn has done no deed deserving of being killed.

Con is correct in quoting the verse in Romans which shows that we all die because we all sin. We are all sinners and therefore, at the end of our lives we all must die. But this is a natural death, which is why we call it "natural causes." Because people die of natural causes does not give us grounds to kill someone intentionally.

We are all made in God's image, and God has told us not to shed innocent blood. The reason that we have courts is because when someone wrongs us, the courts step in to force the offender to make restitution. But none of us are spiritually innocent, which is why God is justified in judging humans.

In short, Con is equivocating on the term "innocent." In my argument, I am referring to the fact that the unborn have committed no act worthy of being killed. We are all made in God's image. I can't kill an adult who has done no wrong against me deserving of death, neither can I kill a toddler, neither can I kill the unborn.

Now unfortunately Con commits a common error, in that he takes Bible verses out of context in order to show his point. In fact, the verses he counts works against his case, because they are cases of spiritual judgement, not physical judgement. They are being punished for their idolatry and other sins, and God is exacting judgement on them.

It is important to remember that God is the giver of life, so only he has the right to take it away. If God kils someone, that does not give us, his creation, the right to kill, as well. I will briefly examine the verses in question:

Exodus 12:29 -- This was divine judgement over the Egyptians. It should also be noted that Israelite children were spared. The Egyptians were punished with the death of their firstborn because Pharaoh would not let his people go out of captivity. He was keeping them as unwilling slaves, which was expressly forbidden in Scripture. [1] Pharaoh had nine other chances to let their people go, but refused. So this was a last resort by God (and Pharaoh still went after them, even after this happened).

Numbers 31:17 -- This is a perfect example of the fact that just because the Bible shows it does not mean it condones it. God did not tell anyone to keep the virgins for themselves. This was Moses speaking. God would not have condoned this.

Deuteronomy 2:33-34/1 Samuel 15:3, 7-8 -- God sanctioned wars in the Old Testament as means of divine judgement. The nations were guilty of idolatry and following other gods, which was detestable to God because he created them. For someone to follow other gods rather than the one who created them is very much a heinous act to God.

None of these verses prove Con's case; just the opposite.

Premise 3

I have already shown why Con's reasoning is flawed regarding the unborn being innocent. They are innocent of any wrongdoing deserving of death. Since we are told not to murder, and we are made in God's image (as Con conceded), then we are not to kill the unborn, who are also humans made in God's image. You'll never find the word "fetus" or "embryo" in the Bible. That's because there was no word for fetus of embryo in Biblical Hebrew or Greek.

The Hebrew word yeled is typically used of children outside the womb, but in Exodus 21:22 and Genesis 25:22 (the plural form), the same word is used of children inside the womb. Additionally, the Greek word brephos refers to the children killed at Pharaoh's command in Acts 7:19, but it is also used of the preborn John the Baptist in Luke 1: 41 and 44. The Bible does, in fact, consider unborn children to be human.

Finally, Con's "more humane" (if abortion can be considered that) method of abortion is still murder. To remove an unborn human from the only habitat in which it can survive is still murder, as surely as kidnapping someone and dropping them, naked, in the middle of Antarctica.

My argument has been sustained and is surely a sound argument.

Con's Argument

I'm unsure if Con was merely sourcing from Evil Bible or made arguments from it. But if he wanted more arguments from that website, I would ask he make them in the debate itself, since my debate is with Con and not with the internet.

Numbers 5: 11-21 -- This was a curse instituted by God. This does not excuse us committing abortion. The reality is that children were considered a blessing to the Israelites. No woman would have ever dreamed about aborting her offspring because children were highly prized by Israelite women. That's why a woman becoming barren (such as through this curse) was considered a curse in the first place.

As Matthew Henry has written, "This law would make the women of Israel watch against giving cause for suspicion. On the other hand, it would hinder the cruel treatment such suspicions might occasion. It would also hinder the guilty from escaping, and the innocent from coming under just suspicion. When no proof could be brought, the wife was called on to make this solemn appeal to a heart-searching God. No woman, if she were guilty, could say "Amen" to the adjuration, and drink the water after it, unless she disbelieved the truth of God, or defied his justice. The water is called the bitter water, because it caused the curse. Thus sin is called an evil and a bitter thing. Let all that meddle with forbidden pleasures, know that they will be bitterness in the latter end." [2]

Numbers 31:17 -- I have already addressed this.

Hosea 13:16 -- This was a prophecy. God was not saying that he will do these things, only that they will happen in the future. God will allow it because of their idolatry which, again, was heinous to God.

2 Kings 15:16 -- If we look at this in context, we see that Menahem killed the king of Israel and took his place, something God certainly wouldn't have condoned. Killing pregnant women was an act by Menahem, not sanctioned by God.

Hosea 9:11-16 -- Hosea asks God to give them a miscarrying womb. Again, God is the giver of life and only he has the right to take it. God "giving a miscarrying womb" does not justify our committing abortions, anymore than God killing someone outside the womb justifies our killing someone outside the womb.

As we see, taking verses out of context and twisting the Bible like a pretzel is par for the course when trying to support abortion. The Bible supports the pro-life case and does not support humans performing abortions.

[1] Exodus 21:16.
[2] http://www.christnotes.org...;
Axiom

Con


I am confusing no such thing: in god's eyes no one is innocent. He cares not for the laws of men (his own words) so to attempt to 'empathize' with god and make a bold claim like 'he hates the shedding of innocent blood' with all the evidence to the contrary is a mistake. If we all deserve death 'spiritually', then it matters little what crimes we commit beyond the initial fault of simply being born. We exist in a perpetual state of deserving death. And as God has mandated and carried out genocide and murders of many 'innocents' per my opponent's definition it proves his second point wrong. "We have all sinned and so we are all deserving of death. But not everything is punishable by death." Once you establish the premise, the second part of this statement is irrelevant.


"Because people die of natural causes does not give us grounds to kill someone intentionally." My opponent is setting up a strawman here. I did not draw my conclusion from this premise. I am addressing Pro's assertion that God 'hates' the death of innocents. Simply put: this is a contradiction of terms: if something dies it is not innocent and judgment has been levied by god. As no one is immortal, no one is innocent. It's that simple. God issues the deaths of everyone no matter their 'innocence' spiritual or otherwise. So to say he hates it would be false. As God cannot do anything he hates since it would be in contradiction to his nature.


I am referring to the fact that the unborn have committed no act worthy of being killed. Once again my opponent is trying to straw man me. I am simply addressing his first point regarding God's treatment of the 'innocent.' And let me reiterate, it is not my place as Con to prove the bible supports abortion it is simply my place to prove it doesn't support pro-life. And by God demanding the death of everyone regardless of human crimes, It helps my case.


"If God kils someone, that does not give us, his creation, the right to kill, as well." I never said it did. I once again, am only proving that the bible doesn't support the pro-life cause via God's representation (God is the moral standard for all). I don't have to prove that it supports pro-choice. To say those are the only two options would be a false dichotomy.


My opponent dismisses the verses as judgments, but that still doesn't help his case. We have precedent for God killing children and human-law 'innocents.' So it attests to the fact that he doesn't 'detest' killing them.


None of these verses prove Con's case; just the opposite. In keeping with the spirit of this form of debate tactic, I shall respond by saying: Er, no, it doesn't.


Numbers 31:17 -- This is a perfect example of the fact that just because the Bible shows it does not mean it condones it. God did not tell anyone to keep the virgins for themselves. This was Moses speaking. God would not have condoned this.


Moses was God's agent. The bible, contrary to some peoples' beliefs, was not written by God's hand, but by moral agents. Moses being one. And my opponent can assert that 'God would not have condoned this,' but I'll respond by asserting: he did, through Moses, as seen in scripture. In the same way God commanded genocide, the stoning of families, the murder of firstborn children.



Premise 3


My opponent has shown no such reasoning regarding my opinion of the unborn. Previously he stated: "We have all sinned and so we are all deserving of death. But not everything is punishable by death." Once again, once you have that first part, the second half is irrelevant.


"Since we are told not to murder, and we are made in God's image (as Con conceded), then we are not to kill the unborn..." We are told not to murder, we are made in god's image, but we are not told not to kill the unborn. In no passage does the bible forbid abortion. In no passage does the bible say not to miscarry, not to abort a fetus (using the word unborn would suffice here as well). And as we know, God is the example for morality, right? He is the standard? In fact aren't Christians commanded to emulate him? He curses the womb and causes miscarriages. He aborts children through curses and orders for the ripping-open of pregnant women.


So any overt verses in the bible on the specific subject of abortion do not favor the pro-life cause.


"The Bible does, in fact, consider unborn children to be human."


No it doesn't. In the same way an expecting, pregnant mother may refer to the fetus in her womb as 'the baby' if you observe it medically it isn't actually 'a baby.' And calling something 'young' for instance would be applicable in these situations. You have both a 'young' child and a 'young' fetus. It is a matter of age, not intrinsic human value.


Is a sperm human? Is an egg? How about the proteins making up a sperm? How about a fetus outside a womb; is that intrinsically human? Nothing in the bible suggests that we should consider fetus or newly fertilized eggs as human. And once again, I am not arguing that pro-choice is supported by the bible. I am simply saying that pro-life, isn't. There are no verses stating, "Abortion is wrong. Do not abort a fetus." God, as the standard for Christian morality, has allowed and commanded for the abortion of fetuses. This is the only overt scriptural passage referring to such an act and it is deemed permissible and righteous as it is an act carried out by God. (observe the previously mentioned verses.)



Numbers 5: "This was a curse instituted by God." Exactly. God provided an abortion. Thus one could follow that a perfect, moral agent, is allowing for the morality of abortion. He can do nothing evil, therefore what he has done is righteous.


Similarly, in the other verses that God commands and allows for abortion; this only goes to show that it is righteous and not contrary to the nature of God.



As we see, taking verses out of context and twisting the Bible like a pretzel is par for the course when trying to support abortion. The Bible supports the pro-life case and does not support humans performing abortions.


The conclusion of this statement doesn't in any way follow the premise. And no one is twisting the bible. We are quoting it. Nowhere does the bible state that 'abortion is immoral.' It's that simple. Abortion isn't murder and it isn't evil. How do I know it's not evil? Because God commands it, does it and sanctions in throughout scripture. This may not be enough to convince someone that the bible is pro-choice, but it most assuredly doesn't suggest that it is pro-life.

Debate Round No. 3
KeytarHero

Pro

I wish to thank Con once again for taking up this debate challenge.

Con says God's own words are that he cares not for man's laws, but doesn't source his claim (and of course, if he sources it in this round I won't be able to respond if it has been taken out of context to show that Con is misunderstanding the words of God). While it is true no one is innocent in the eyes of God in a spiritual sense, because we all sin, there are people innocent of crimes. I may be a guilty sinner, but I have never committed murder. So to throw me in jail and kill me through capital punishment is to punish me for a crime I did not commit. If I rob a bank and I am killed for it, I am still being punished unfairly because the penalty for bank robbery is not death. Con is simply confusing spiritual guilt for physical guilt.

The statement "we are all deserving of death" does not mean "we are all deserving of being killed." God gives life, so only he has the right to take it. As I have mentioned, God taking life does not give us grounds to take it through any act, be it murder or abortion.

God can do things that he hates to do. Second Peter 3:9 tells us that God does not want any to perish but that all should come to repentance, yet people do perish. They are condemned for their sin and consigned to Hell for eternity. God hates the shedding of innocent blood, but as much as God is loving He is also righteous and cannot tolerate sin. So Con's argument is simply incorrect. Plus, as I mentioned those people are not truly innocent. When God called for a nation's death, it was because of divine justice (usually because of the sin of idolatry).

We do not have precedent for God killing innocent children and human-law innocents. It is telling that he didn't give any examples. And of course, if he brings them up in this round I will not be able to respond to them.

Con is simply incorrect when he says that God supported the rape of virgins vicariously through Moses. Moses was God's agent, but everything he said wasn't condoned by God. In fact, Moses was denied entrance to the promised land because of his sin (Numbers 20:1-12). Just because the Bible records it does not mean God condones it. It is sloppy exegesis to claim that everything the Bible records, it condones. You must read passages in context for their meaning, not just pull one or a few verses out of context to support your contention.

I have already explained why the Bible's silence on abortion does not condone it. Re-read my opening argument for that. I have also explained that the unborn are humans and considered children, even in the Bible. I don't need to reiterate that here. I have also explained why God's killing of someone does not give us license to do so. God killed Ananias and Sapphira in the book of Acts for their lying. That does not mean we can go around killing everyone who tells a lie.

Now Con resorts to extra-biblical information to make his case, but this is irrelevant to the case at hand. My case is that the Bible supports the pro-life case. Whether or not the unborn human is actually a child is irrelevant -- the Bible considers it as such. That's all that matters for this debate. I have shown in other debates that the unborn are living human organisms biologically, but that is outside the scope of this debate. If Con wishes to debate me on the scientific aspect of the debate, he may challenge me if he wishes.
God never allows for abortion. I have already explained the meaning of Numbers 5 and Con seems to have ignored my response.

I have shown why the Bible supports a pro-life case and Con has not sufficiently argued against it. Thank you for reading, and thank you to Con for your time.
Axiom

Con

This is the shortest conclusion I've ever written. But I don't have to write one any longer because my opponent has begged the question and followed red-herrings without upholding his BOP. Refer to the paragraph starting with the quotation, "Weather or not an unborn..." To read exactly why I say this.

"
We do not have precedent for God killing innocent children and human-law innocents."

This is just absolutely untrue as stated in the verses above. God kills children, the firstborn in Egypt, calls for miscarriages and curses wombs. Now who is twisting the bible like a pretzel?

It is telling that he didn't give any examples.

Are we reading the same debate? I did give examples of genocide (which includes children and babies and pregnant mothers) I did give examples of infanticide and the killing of firstborn in Egypt. They're in the above rounds. So this statement is just false.

You must read passages in context for their meaning, not just pull one or a few verses out of context to support your contention.

I agree wholeheartedly. I am not the one with the BOP in this debate, you are. And as of yet you haven't been able to pull any verses out purporting pro-choice.

I have already explained why the Bible's silence on abortion does not condone it.

And here we reach the crux of the matter. You're right, the bible's silence on an issue doesn't necessarily mean it supports that issue. Unfortunately, you are the one that said the bible is 'pro-choice,' implying that it does support anti-abortion sentiment. YOU are the one with the BOP, not me. Except you have yet to prove that through anything beyond begging the question. If the bible is silent on the issue, then how do you expect to prove it either way? You assume that a fetus is a human and then go onto tack verses to it. We have the legal system for that. They say don't kill, don't murder don't commit infanticide. We don't need the bible to tell us that. And one thing the bible doesn't say is that a fetus is equated to a human.

Whether or not the unborn human is actually a child is irrelevant -- the Bible considers it as such.

IT IS NOT IRRELEVANT. Your entire debate hinges upon this point and you haven't given any verses to support this wild assertion. You could have mentioned, 'he knitted us together in our mother's womb,' or something along those lines, but you didn't. You begged the question. You assumed your answer. You can't just say, 'the bible considers it as such.' It is your BOP to prove that and allow me a chance for rebuttal. But as you haven't even tried to prove that there's really no point in me continuing this debate.

I could concede all arguments leading up to this point and still win. I could say all of what you said is true except about fetus' being human and I'd win this debate, because you haven't proven anything remotely near the assertion that they are. I don't concede any of my arguments though. Because my arguments are the only sound proof showing that God is violent. He does commit abortions. He does, at least in some circumstances, order genocide and waste to a land. Call it judgment, call it love. Either way it doesn't support my opponent's 'pro-choice' assertion about the bible. None of these arguments have supported a 'pro-choice' bible if we don't just assume that a fetus is a human. If we do though, then the entire debate is pretty much moot isn't it? I don't assume it. I reject that premise and it was my opponent's burden to support it. He hasn't upheld his BOP. Instead he's begged the question.

Debate Round No. 4
45 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
Famer, Socialpinko's vote was placed as a counter to HitchSlap, which he then removed...
Posted by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
Ah, okay then. IN any regards, thanks. :)
Posted by larztheloser 4 years ago
larztheloser
"can you specify where this "rule" applies?"
You mean where a shared BOP would be unjudgeable? If neither team makes any good arguments, or both teams make arguments that are so good you just can't decide (this latter one is rare because it requires great casemaking and almost no rebuttal).

The rest of your RFD was very good though, much higher standard than most RFDs on this site. Thank you for making DDO a better (judged) place!
Posted by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
"Debaters do not have the privilege of dictating who has the BOP, and besides I think a shared BOP is logically impossible because it leads to un-judgeable outcomes."

I should however ask: can you specify where this "rule" applies?
Posted by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
Hm...very well. Of course however, that's only a minor point in my RFD and one that I don't wish to emphasize...lol.

The rest of my RFD stands though (with the exception of the marginal reference to the supposed shared burden of proof...), and I still would like to show that it correlates to the debate, if needed to.
Posted by larztheloser 4 years ago
larztheloser
Debaters do not have the privilege of dictating who has the BOP, and besides I think a shared BOP is logically impossible because it leads to un-judgeable outcomes.
Posted by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
And if anyone wants me to, I can try to correlate my statements in the RFD to what was said in the debate. :-)
Posted by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
"Ordinarily I would assume burden of proof, but for the purposes of this debate, burden of proof will be shared."

Just to note--this is confirmation that the burden of proof was supposed to be shared in the course of this debate.
Posted by larztheloser 4 years ago
larztheloser
RFD:

Pro had BOP. There were 2 problems I had with this debate:

1. Nobody justified what it meant to "support". A lot of this debate focused on what God would support, not what the Bible supports. Additionally, there was the open question of whether we're talking about what one could, in theory, use the bible to support, or what the bible actually says in context, which isn't necessarily the same. I decided to judge this debate based on whether the Bible's overall message was one favorable to the pro-life cause.
2. Very little of the debate actually focused on the pro-life aspect. Both debaters used huge amounts of material that wasn't directly relevant to the debate. The result of this is that the whole debate ended up hinging on a single argument.

Having said that, I feel both debaters did a commendable job on a tough topic.

Pro's case was that scripture says God doesn't like people killing people. Con had two responses. The first was that unborn children are not necessarily people. This was a bit of an onus-pushing match, but I felt that pro's justification for his own initial assumption seemed lacking at the end of the debate, and there wasn't any biblical support. The second is that God doesn't mind killing. I felt pro narrowly won this because he was able to offer a somewhat greater depth of analysis on these points - con was outmaneuvered slightly as pro was able to provide a range of contextual verses later in the debate. Both sides could have benefitted from a lot more structure here.

The ultimate question I had to decide on was, even though in this debate pro failed to show a complete argument for abortion stemming from the Bible, whether pro could show that the Bible did "support" it. As it happened, the majority of the debate focused on con's second response to pro's single argument, so I generally felt that narrative turned out to have the stronger influence in the end. I was convinced that there was broad Biblical support for the pro-li
Posted by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
Or rather ill--and tired.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by famer 4 years ago
famer
KeytarHeroAxiomTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: "Shut up Hitchslap". Hitchslap hasn't exactly voted yet, so this is CVB
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 4 years ago
TheHitchslap
KeytarHeroAxiomTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Removed due to the tyranny of the majority here on DDO
Vote Placed by larztheloser 4 years ago
larztheloser
KeytarHeroAxiomTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
KeytarHeroAxiomTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Shut up Hitchslap.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
KeytarHeroAxiomTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: See RFD in comments...I am not sure why Pro is not offered source points despite using several authorities--apologist works, references to biblical passages, and so forth as opposed to Axiom's use of a notorious site--"Evil Bible" which explicitly seeks to demonstrate the "immorality of religion"...or even lesser sources. Nevertheless, that is not the issue or even the whole gist of the debate...
Vote Placed by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
KeytarHeroAxiomTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I think pro easily wins this debate. RFD in comments (note they will be up later)
Vote Placed by 000ike 4 years ago
000ike
KeytarHeroAxiomTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Since Hitchslap was countering 16kadam's votebomb, his vote was legitimate. So I'm here to counter Viper-Kings vote.
Vote Placed by Viper-King 4 years ago
Viper-King
KeytarHeroAxiomTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering HitchSlap. Seriously? EvilBible.com? I overall felt Con won this debate.
Vote Placed by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
KeytarHeroAxiomTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's examples of God killing innocent children demonstrated that God does not necessarily hate innocent killings. Pro also failed to prove that the Bible recognizes the unborn as human. Pro had the BOP and he failed to uphold it. Also, counter davidtaylorjr's vote bomb.
Vote Placed by davidtaylorjr 4 years ago
davidtaylorjr
KeytarHeroAxiomTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro demonstrated a much better understanding of the Scriptures and Theology which led to his reception of my argument vote. Everything else was equal between the two parties.