The Instigator
AndreaC
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Samyul
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Samyul
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/26/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 435 times Debate No: 55469
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

AndreaC

Con

abortion should be illegal for so many reasons, first you are killing a human a baby that can not defend himself and dont tell me is not a human or alive because a baby heart starts pumping in the fist weeks.
Samyul

Pro

Ah, finally a debate!
It's been a very long time since I have debated, over a year exactly and I'm excited to finally get back in to things!

The instigator, (Con) hasn't really set any guidelines to the debate, or any structure at all. So, I will go ahead and infer that this first round is for acceptance, as it would not be fair for me to begin debating without the instigator proposing an instigating statement, therefore I will wait for Con to post an opening statement in favor of his view, which is apparently the outlaw of abortion.

Thanks to Con for creating this debate and I look forward to, hopefully, a great debate.
Debate Round No. 1
AndreaC

Con

first the taking of innocent life is called murder, you just need to take a look at the pictures of aborted babies, murdered babies, lying without legs or arms, in a pile of blood with their little fingers and face features in pain, or listen to what an ex-abortionist doctor says about when they were doing the "procedure", and how the baby moved away and tried to hide in the walls of the uterus, or that its head moved when the aborted baby was placed a few seconds still alive in the lab desk. ITS SO WRONG!
"my body my choice" how many girs doesnt said that but its not true is someone else body inside of yours ITS NOT YOUR CHOICE THEN. my point is: abortion is basically a murder.
Samyul

Pro

Alright well, Con's opening statement was um, to say the least, lack-luster?

INITIAL REACTION;
My opponent seems to not be "debating" but rather venting personal opinion to the general population. I would also like to take notice in the fact that my opponent's statement was not factually based in any sense, and could for all I know be complete fiction. (I am not doubting certain statements, rather I am emphasizing the point that my opponent provided no source to validate his statements) . I hope my opponent provides a more actual debate-structured statement next round rather than a simple paragraph releasing personal opinions and gruesome statements in an attempt to pull emotional appeal with, presumed fictional statements.

REBUTTAL;
Although my opponent provided a rather weak statement , because this is a debate is still deserves a rebuttal.

My opponent says "ITS SO WRONG" (Not to be a grammar stickler, but *It's is correct grammar) when talking about abortion. Well, believe it or not your opinion isn't the only opinion, and just because you think something is wrong doesn't mean that it should be outlawed. I may think that sport cars should be outlawed because they're dangerous and I don't like them. I think that they are wrong. Now, until that I provide factual evidence and logical statements supporting my belief, who would take me seriously? Let alone make sports cars illegal just because I think that they are wrong.
Am no way am I comparing sports cars to abortion, I am comparing two similar statements and the fallacy behind them. Just because you think that it is wrong, doesn't mean that we should make it illegal.

Now, my opponent hasn't really given me much to debate on, so I will try and infer what my opponent is trying to portray, and points that they are trying to convey, and then debate off of those.
My opponent talked about "murdered babies" when in fact "baby" when talking about abortion is unfortunately a subjective term.
My opponent never defined "Baby" therefore I will.

A baby, [Reference 1] is "a newborn or very young child"
A baby [Reference 2] is " a very young human, particularly from birth to a couple years old or until walking is mastered"
By these definitions, abortion is not the murdering of a baby, because the aborted being is not a baby.

-In concession to my opponent (I found this fit and respectful to do) if my opponent checks my first source used in the definition above, they can find many other definitions for a baby, which they could use to help prove that the aborted child is indeed a baby.

Abortion does not kill a baby, rather it ends a pregnancy. [2] Now, one may reply saying that to end a pregnancy, you must "end" a humans life. Then, you get in to the question of when human life begins. It is IMPOSSIBLE to for sure say when human life begins, that is a religious question and the beginning of human life cannot be proven. It's opinionated. [3]

DISCLAIMER;
Speaking of religion, I myself am a Christian. Do I favor abortion? Do I disagree? It's irrelevant. But, when researching how to be a better debater, I have learned its best to debate against yourself and your view.
So am I truly Pro-Abortion? Who knows. But it's irrelevant in this debate, I just thought id throw that information in to this debate to prevent my opponent from using an "Ad-Hominem" logical fallacy technique against me.

Thanks to my opponent and audience for reading, I eagerly await a response.

[1] - Dictionary.com
[2] - www.bbc.co.uk
[3] - sites.google.com ( The abortion debater )
Debate Round No. 2
AndreaC

Con

AndreaC forfeited this round.
Samyul

Pro

My arguments and thoughts remain as presented above.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
AndreaC

Con

AndreaC forfeited this round.
Samyul

Pro

Samyul forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
AndreaC

Con

AndreaC forfeited this round.
Samyul

Pro

It seems as if my opponent has forfeited the debate and conceded to my
arguments.

Vote Samyul

Thanks everyone for reading the rather short debate, we can all agree that these aren't the type of debates we all look to read, but unfortunately they happen.

Thanks everyone.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by DefenderOfTheTruth 2 years ago
DefenderOfTheTruth
Whoever you end up debating, I hope you do well and spread the Pro-Life Movement.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by schachdame 2 years ago
schachdame
AndreaCSamyulTied
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: Apart from the FF, Con lost also the conduct points for yelling (I regard Capitalizing a whole sentence in this case as particularly poor conduct). Pro's arguments were better structured, built and thought trough, therefore more convincing. I don't award source points for dictionaries and wikipedia, especially as the sourcing style wasn't good. I don't expect APA but /if/ one gives sources, one should provide it in a way that enables the reader to retrieve the information directly.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
AndreaCSamyulTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff