The Instigator
tribefan011
Pro (for)
Winning
44 Points
The Contender
aquajet16
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

The pro-life argument IS NOT supported by the Bible.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/19/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,318 times Debate No: 4730
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (13)

 

tribefan011

Pro

First off, I'll start off with the term "pro-life." Although that's what they want it to mean, it's not truly what it means. There is no consensus scientific or biological definition of when life starts. However, the Fourteenth Amendment seems to offer the view that one is not alive until born. Therefore, one isn't granted the same rights as a United States citizen. I will anticipate your counterpoint to that. You will likely look at the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. But that is a very sparingly used law and clearly does not apply to abortion. The bill contains an exception to abortion. Fetuses are given very limited rights.

Also, as for the Christian viewpoint (this is the important part), the Bible equates life with breath. Here are several verses:

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
-- Genesis 2:7 (KJV)"

"The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.
-- Job 33:4 (KJV)"

"So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army.
-- Ezekiel 37:10 (KJV)"

I am a Christian and my belief is that the Bible does not have a stance on either side of the issue. I'm not sure what God's view on abortion would be, but the Bible does not support either side. Abortion obviously was not an issue at the time when the Bible was written. So it's hard to tell what his view on the issue is. The reason I say this is because I don't like how people use the Bible to justify their pro-life stance, when that is really not the issue.

I'm expecting someone to quote Jeremiah 1:5 in a response. But that does not really support your view, so I'd be interested in seeing how you can connect that to your argument.

So you can go ahead and mention the "sanctity of life." You can go ahead and mention the 6th commandment (Thou shalt not murder). But that doesn't contradict my argument because one is not considered alive until one takes a breath.
aquajet16

Con

Really, there is no biological or scientific definition of when life starts? Well according to my source here are the indications of life backed up with science of course.

Conventional definition: Often scientists say that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit the following phenomena:

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

As the evidence suggests, a fetus has life. Killing a life is murder. So he/she should not be killed and the 6th commandment supports my stance.

I think you had some misconception about the bible quotes and allow me to explain them all. The breath they were talking about is God's breath, not the breath of the human being created. Simply put, you cannot equate God's breath with life.
Debate Round No. 1
tribefan011

Pro

Now, you're twisting my words. I said there is no consensus biological or scientific definition of when life starts. Notice the word consensus. That means there is not an agreed upon definition. So you created a false argument by twisting my words.

Interesting definition, but I see it as proving my point. While the fetus is in the womb, it is developing. It is not yet a life form. It is entirely dependent on the mother and obviously can not use its organs properly since it can't breathe. As the embryo becomes a fetus and it keeps developing, the baby gains more of the characteristics.

#1 mentions sweating. The fetus doesn't even develop sweat glands until 22 weeks. #2 is pretty ridiculous. That's basically suggesting that hair, which has cells, is a life. Another problem that you will have with the definition is #5 and #7. Adaptation will not occur until after the fetus is born. A fetus can obviously not sexually reproduce. However, it can produce new cells. As you can see, all of these are not possible until the baby is born. The stages before birth are development of life. The fetus is entirely dependent on its mother and does not have full control of its own body.

No, your evidence does not suggest that a fetus has life. For one, it mentions sweating. Is it alive when it's basically just a ball of cells as an embryo? Does the fetus suddenly become alive when it's at 22 weeks because it develops sweat glands? Is the fetus not alive until it can adapt or sexually reproduce? This just goes on to prove my point that there is no consensus biological or scientific definition of when life starts.

Your last paragraph is incredibly ridiculous as you take it far too literally. God does not have a humanlike body to breathe "life" into someone. God just caused him to start breathing. "The breath of the Almighty" is meant as a metaphor and should not be taken literally. It is equating life with breath. The man is not "a living soul" until he is given the "breath of life." This shows that one is not a living soul until he takes his first breath. And one cannot its first breath until he's born.

NOTE: This is not part of my argument, but I definitely do not recommend using Wikipedia as a source in a scientific argument. Also, you may want to address the topic at hand more in your response, which is whether the "pro-life" position is supported by the Bible.
aquajet16

Con

I will just now go ahead with a straightforward attack and debate this in a logical sense....

Well we are talking if the pro-life argument if it is supported by the bible or not. Well, pro-life may also mean about death penalty and euthanasia, those are clear signs of life since they live, whilst killing them which have life is against the Bible's sixth commandment. Maybe you could quite say that one aspect of pro-life, abortion to be specific) is not supported by the bible but it does not warrant that all pro-life arguments are not supported by the Bible, the other arguments I refer to are euthanasia and death penalty.

And also, how could you say that those are metaphorical. True that the Bible is composed of metaphors and such but it doesn't apply that since many are metaphorical so all are metaphorical. Well, you might say that it is clearly metaphorical since they are unbelievable but don't forget that God is omnipotent and He can do anything, like breathing to dust and make people out of them.
Debate Round No. 2
tribefan011

Pro

When I say "pro-life," I obviously mean the stance on the abortion debate, as that's when it's most commonly used. The pro-life stances you speak of, euthanasia and the death penalty, are supported by the Bible. So I was not referring to those stances.

I also hold the view that God is omnipotent to an extent. It's obviously impossible for him to be completely omnipotent (If you haven't read much on omnipotence paradox, I suggest you do. It's rather interesting.). Many theologians disagree with this view as it's impossible. There are several things God cannot do. I'm not going to create a huge list because that would be rather pointless. But God cannot deceive, nor be corrupted. An important thing for this argument is that he is immovable. We have to look at what he can do in a logical sense. Though God can't physically breathe into people, he can give them breath. This is what God did in the case of Adam, as shown in Genesis 2:7, as well as Job, in Job 33:4.

Not only does breath mark the beginning of life, but it also marks the end as shown in Luke 23:46, when Jesus dies:
"Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" And having said this he breathed his last. (KJV)"

So, in many parts of the Bible, breath is equated with life. Therefore, we cannot consider a fetus or an embryo a life. It is not supported by the scientific or biological definition either. The stages before birth are development as God knits us together in our mother's womb (Psalm 139:13-14). We are not complete until birth when we take our first breath.

And if you were wondering my view on death penalty and euthanasia, I agree with you. I am pro-life in that aspect.

This is an interesting site if you want to read about omnipotence paradox: http://www.courses.rochester.edu...
aquajet16

Con

Well, it's not that abortion is mostly associated with pro-lfe so if we will talk about ONLY abortion. It's just an appeal to tradition baby.

Oh and about the omnipotence paradoxes, been there done that. I don't wanna dwell more on that one since we will be getting of topic but I want to mean is
that no omnipotence paradox is contrary to my adamantly emphasized act, the breathing unto dust to create life so God can really physically breath into people.

Man sorry if I rushed it I have a lot of homework hahaha
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
Pro should not have tried to argue against the scientific definition of life. However, since that point was pretty much irrelevant, Pro still deserves the win.
Posted by Steven123 8 years ago
Steven123
Wow, I don't see how anyone with a brain could vote for Con.
Posted by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
Had CON pushed just a little more, by insisting on the expanded definiton of pro-life he could have won, as PRO conceded that point. His contention was supported in the resolution and he could have made it stick. I had to vote PRO because CON's one good argument that related to the topic was dropped at the first hint of rebuttal from PRO. Nothing else I read related to the topic
Posted by Steven123 8 years ago
Steven123
Pro wins easily. I definitely do not agree with all of tribefan011's assessments, but aquajet16 conceded the point in Rounds 2 and 3. This would have been more exciting if aquajet16 had expounded more.
Posted by tribefan011 8 years ago
tribefan011
I thought you actually debated in a sensible and logical manner, rather than some other people I have debated on this matter. You did not use an ad hominem argument, which I've had to endure a lot when talking about this. We don't seem to disagree on much. Just wondering, why in your profile does it say you're in favor of late-term abortion, but against abortion?
I didn't answer the one about abortion because I don't like the idea of being "in favor" of abortion. I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion. And the only reason I disagree on national health care is because of the state of the economy. I think it's more important now to reduce the power of pharmaceutical companies and health care organizations and institute a universal health care plan when the economy starts doing better.
I wouldn't feel rushed if I were you as I was in no hurry.
Posted by aquajet16 8 years ago
aquajet16
God yeah ahahahah
I'll just have to wait then...
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
It's a shame you forgot the part where you address the resolution, aquajet16.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Youngblood 7 years ago
Youngblood
tribefan011aquajet16Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
tribefan011aquajet16Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Agnostic 7 years ago
Agnostic
tribefan011aquajet16Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by tribefan011 8 years ago
tribefan011
tribefan011aquajet16Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by jr98664 8 years ago
jr98664
tribefan011aquajet16Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by B2BCHAOS 8 years ago
B2BCHAOS
tribefan011aquajet16Tied
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 
Vote Placed by felixvilla 8 years ago
felixvilla
tribefan011aquajet16Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Casiopia 8 years ago
Casiopia
tribefan011aquajet16Tied
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 
Vote Placed by alvinthegreat 8 years ago
alvinthegreat
tribefan011aquajet16Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
tribefan011aquajet16Tied
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