The Instigator
Roganjoesloan
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ConserativeDemocrat
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

is abortion moral

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 578 times Debate No: 104666
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (0)

 

Roganjoesloan

Con

My position on this particular subject is no matter what happened no matter what you are going through even if the baby is going to wreak your short term life you can't bring a baby back from the dead when it's convenient the baby does not deserve to die because its mother got raped or went to that wild party and in the small chance of teen pregnancy I don't think that teens should be pregnant but once they get pregnant they should have to give birth of course with assistance I can not think of any argument that excuses the right to live because of someone's personal convenience issues. three facts that should debunk any opposing arguments are " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 1."" Since life begins at conception, abortion is akin to murder as it is the act of taking human life. Abortion is in direct defiance of the commonly accepted idea of the sanctity of human life
2.No civilized society permits one human to intentionally harm or take the life of another human without punishment, and abortion is no different.
3.Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion and accomplishes the same result except for the baby doesn't get executed. And with 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child, there is no such thing as an unwanted child
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ironically the argument for abortion is the exact same as the argument for slavery the argument is that if it's on my property I get to decide if its property or not so, in conclusion, should the murder of literally the most innocent among us be treated with no more care than getting a tooth pulled " a good society can survive people doing immoral things but a good society can not survive when people call immoral things moral .
ConserativeDemocrat

Pro

Let's do this.

Thesis:

Abortion, the lawful termination of a fetus, is moral and should be legal in certain scenarios and times.

Argument:

Morals: Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

With this definition in mind, I will argue that abortion is the right thing to do in many circumstances, therefore it is moral.

Why do people have abortions? Here is some data on why women get abortions:

Percentage of women reporting that specified reasons contributed to their decision to have an abortion Reason 2004 (N=1,160)

Having a baby would dramatically change my life: 74%
Would interfere with education: 38%
Would interfere with job/employment/career: 38%
Have other children or dependents: 32%
Can’t afford a baby now: 73%
Unmarried: 42%
Student or planning to study: 34%
Can’t afford a baby and child care: 28%
Can’t afford the basic needs of life: 23%
Unemployed: 22%
Can’t leave job to take care of a baby: 21%
Would have to find a new place to live: 19%
Don’t want to be a single mother or having relationship problems: 48%
Not enough support from husband or partner: 14%
Husband or partner is unemployed: 12%
Husband or partner is abusive to me or my children: 2%
Have completed my childbearing: 38%
Not ready for a(nother) child: 32%
Don’t want people to know I had sex or got pregnant: 25%
Don’t feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child: 22%
Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion: 14%
Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus: 13%
Physical problem with my health: 12%
Parents want me to have an abortion: 6%
Was a victim of rape: 1%
Became pregnant as a result of incest: <0.5%
[1]
Look at these reasons. People are only getting abortions to stop pain and suffering, not to cause it. For example, 2% of women, or around 15,000 women yearly (based on the fact that there are around 750 thousand abortions yearly [2]), get abortions because their partner is abusive. Do we really want babies to be born into an environment where they will be abused?
Or what about the 73% of women who say they can't afford a baby? These people can barely put a roof over their head, and now they have to take care of a child? Allowing these people to abort their fetus not only would help the parent survive (protecting life?), but will also save the baby from a horrible life.
Or what about the 38% of women who said they were students? Students already have plenty of responsibilities, between working and going to class, and already are poor enough, trying to support themselves and pay tuition. How are they supposed to afford a child? And even if some of these women can, the baby is likely going to be neglected as the women who would keep it are likely to be innmature and won't have time to properly care for their child.

So, our options are either to have millions of babies born into poor or irresponsible homes, or we can have the pregnancy terminated early so that no harm is caused to either the mom or the fetus.

Human babies, not even fetuses, but actual babies don't become conscious until they are around 2 years old [3]. Fetuses mental development is even worse. Fetuses don't even feel pain until at least late in the 2nd trimester. Here is a quote from a study done by Stuart Derbyshire [4]:

"Without verbal reports and direct access to the mind of a fetus, inferences about what fetuses are able to experience depend on the interpretation of secondary evidence. As discussed, neuroanatomical pathways necessary for processing pain, similar to those observed in adults and older children, could be in place by 23 weeks' gestation. The stereotypical hormonal stress response of adults or older infants, of about 18 months onwards, reporting pain is observable in fetuses at 18 weeks' gestation. Behavioural reactions and brain haemodynamic responses to noxious stimuli, comparable to adults or older infants, occur by 26 weeks' gestation. These and other observations are taken to suggest that the fetal mind can support an experience of pain from at least 26 weeks' gestation."

Essentially, early abortions are moral, as they will prevent pain and suffering, while not causing pain and suffering of their own.

Rebuttals:

" Since life begins at conception, abortion is akin to murder as it is the act of taking human life."

Nonsense. While I concede that life does begin at conception, life is not equal to human life. Fetuses are missing many human characteristics. Fetuses can't think or feel pain; in fact, their brains hardly exist at all.

This is the definition of "Human Being":
A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

A fetus definitely doesn't fit those characteristics, therefore it isn't a human. This is comparable to saying an egg is the same thing as a chicken.

No civilized society permits one human to intentionally harm or take the life of another human without punishment, and abortion is no different.

As already proven, a fetus isn't a human, therefore abortion isn't murder.

Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion and accomplishes the same result except for the baby doesn't get executed. And with 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child, there is no such thing as an unwanted child.

2 things:

1.) A fetus isn't a baby, nor is abortion execution. Even if we make the false assumption that a fetus is a human, it in no way fits the definition of execution, nor is it a baby.

2.) Can I have a source for your claim that 1.5 million families want adoptions? And secondly, around 120,000 adoptions happen each year [5]. Compare that to the 700,000 abortions that happen each year. There is no possible way the adoption system can handle that many more babies. If Con has a plan for what we can do with the 700,000 more babies that will be born each year, I would love to hear it.

Conclusion:

Con makes several claims that aren't backed by evidence. Con will need to provide multiple sources proving his claims, specifically regarding the amount of adoptions that occur each year and regarding fetal development in the womb. Until then, I argue that since fetuses can't feel pain, nor are the conscious, abortion is a way to prevent pain in the lives of mothers and children.

Sources:

[1] https://www.guttmacher.org...
[2] https://www.cdc.gov...
[3] https://www.scientificamerican.com...
[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[5] http://www.aacap.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Roganjoesloan

Con

Rebuttal So what I got from your argument is that you didn't really read my arguments or didn't understand them on a moral level which is okay not everyone does. But I believe because I made the topic its called IS ABORTION MORAL killing helpless humans is not and should not be called moral so all your rubbish about killing babies because they would grow up in poor and impoverished homes which is bad but so is killing defenceless babies who can't defend themselves which we can stop by not treating sex as a health issue but something that you should not do until you get married and you don't have to intrude on people rights but change public opinion, by the way, your stats agree with my last point if we promote safe sex contraceptives are very cheap and if you want to have sex take precautions. If everyone was careful we could half all unwanted births. On the off chance that your ability to listen to reasoned is not impaired debate I will recommend some links to some videos That might help to change your opinion to your point about fetuses not being human two human people had sexual intercourse to produce this child so it would be denying a science fact that this is not human offspring this is a quote from your last post on this debate While I concede that life does begin at conception, life is not equal to human life. This is a quote from you This is your definition of "Human Being":
A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance. does this mean that my friend with a speech disability is less human than me because he has this problem he still identifies as human what about someone who is deformed who doesn't have an upright stance by your definition this excludes two fully human beings? do you count them by your definition if you do you are proving your definition wrong can you please answer. because that is what your definition says and I also like how you mention the word child in your definition.

While I concede that life does begin at conception, life is not equal to human life this is a quote from your last post which completely destroys your own argument.
What you are using is a deductive argument the concept of a deductive argument that it can't be false if the premises are true but unfortunately for you, your premises are false I will leave a link in sources to say what a deductive argument is. of thank you for reading. God bless
ConserativeDemocrat

Pro

Before I begin, I ask that Con use spell check and check for proper spelling and grammar. Your argument is extremely hard to read and understand.

Now,

Rebuttals:

"But I believe because I made the topic its called IS ABORTION MORAL killing helpless humans is not and should not be called moral so all your rubbish about killing babies because they would grow up in poor and impoverished homes which is bad but so is killing defenceless babies who can't defend themselves"

Pro is making a gigantic assumption. He is assuming that because I believe abortion is moral, that I believe infanticide is moral. Either that, or he believes fetuses are babies. I already disproved that in Round One, but I guess I can repeat the quote I posted earlier:

"Without verbal reports and direct access to the mind of a fetus, inferences about what fetuses are able to experience depend on the interpretation of secondary evidence. As discussed, neuroanatomical pathways necessary for processing pain, similar to those observed in adults and older children, could be in place by 23 weeks' gestation. The stereotypical hormonal stress response of adults or older infants, of about 18 months onwards, reporting pain is observable in fetuses at 18 weeks' gestation. Behavioural reactions and brain haemodynamic responses to noxious stimuli, comparable to adults or older infants, occur by 26 weeks' gestation. These and other observations are taken to suggest that the fetal mind can support an experience of pain from at least 26 weeks' gestation."

Unless Con has a source proving fetuses are, in fact, conscious and can feel pain, I win this point. My argument here still stands. Since fetuses can't feel pain, it is morally justifiable to terminate a fetus early on in order to prevent pain after it is born.


"which we can stop by not treating sex as a health issue but something that you should not do until you get married and you don't have to intrude on people rights but change public opinion, by the way, your stats agree with my last point if we promote safe sex contraceptives are very cheap and if you want to have sex take precautions. If everyone was careful we could half all unwanted births."

I fail to see how this is relevant.


On the off chance that your ability to listen to reasoned is not impaired debate

I object to this attack on me. This is an ad hominem logical fallacy.

That might help to change your opinion to your point about fetuses not being human two human people had sexual intercourse to produce this child so it would be denying a science fact that this is not human offspring this is a quote from your last post on this debate

While this is hard to understand, I believe Con is saying that because two humans were required to produce a fetus, it is therefore human and should have all the rights of a human. I already responded to this in my Round One argument. I compared Con saying a fetus is a human to an egg being a full grown chicken. Con conveniently drops this.

A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance. does this mean that my friend with a speech disability is less human than me because he has this problem he still identifies as human what about someone who is deformed who doesn't have an upright stance by your definition this excludes two fully human beings? do you count them by your definition if you do you are proving your definition wrong can you please answer. because that is what your definition says and I also like how you mention the word child in your definition.

No, clearly a disabled person is clearly a human being. They are just disabled.

Extension:

Con makes several assumptions in their argument, specifically that a fetus is a human being. Pro rejects this assumption, and requests Con provide evidence that a fetus is equal to a human being.

Pro has provided an example of how fetuses can't feel pain, automatically making them less then human beings. Fetuses also can't think, or live independently. Nor can they stand upright, talk, have a personality, cry, laugh, walk, or any other number of human characteristics.

The key part of that is "live independently". A fetus is completely dependent on the mother. It gets all of its nutrients through the umbilical cord; if it is cut, the fetus dies. True human beings are independent. While we may have various aids to help us survive, we are not connected to another person, therefore we are independent human beings.

Con will need to prove, with substantial scientific evidence, that fetuses are human beings, therefore we should consider the termination of them murder.

Pro extends their argument from Round One, that since fetuses can't feel pain, nor are they human beings, it is morally justifiable to abort a fetus if said abortion will reduce pain to the mother, father, child, or anyone else affected by the pregnancy.

Con also drops one of my arguments - That adoption is not a reasonable solution to abortion, if abortions are banned.

So, to conclude, Con has multiple tasks ahead of them. They will need to respond to their point about adoption, specifically my rebuttal to it. But most of all, Con will need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that a fetus is in fact a human being. This is impossible for Con to do, however, as all modern medical research proves fetuses are not human beings. Because of that, Pro should win the debate, as Pro points out that abortions are painless to the fetus, as it can't even feel pain, and abortions are usually done to prevent pain after birth. Therefore, abortion is morally good.
Debate Round No. 2
Roganjoesloan

Con

before I begin my spell check program was stuffing up and also sorry for me jumbling up my arguments I made three different copies of my debate and put them together only to find there was a very small character limit and im con your pro okay you seem to get this mixed up a bit.
First of all, I am not all knowing { thank God} and the sources of my adoption argument were a bit off and I concede that when I did more digging into the matter and found the numbers a bit different. While I concede this point adoption is an option and should be considered way before abortion especially if you can not afford the child.
Now on the point of is the fetus alive. Pro makes the same gigantic assumption that I have that the fetus is not alive and feels no pain and has no intrinsic value as pro stated "Without verbal reports and direct access to the mind of a fetus, inferences about what fetuses are able to experience depends on the interpretation of secondary evidence. I absolutely agree on that. let me give you a hypertheal situation you see something on the road that looks like a jacket but could be a homeless person you would probably swerve to edge on the side of caution just to be safe so if you didn't know if a fetus was human or not you probably wouldn't kill it. unless pro can prove with conclusive evidence that that fetus can not feel pain I feel that I win this point because without evidence "Without verbal reports and direct access to the mind of a fetus, inferences about what fetuses are able to experience depending on the interpretation of secondary evidence. As clearly stated by pro there is no first-hand evidence so It is Clearly not moral to kill the baby.
pro asks con for evidence on why fetus equals human life well I assume pro was once a fetus and never stopped being human offspring and has just grown a bit.And pro is using a deductive argument which is only right if the fact claimed at the start is correct which is false because. the fetus is human and in fact alive and not impossible to prove as pro states because I'm alive and kicking and human from the start and didn't change to being a human.
So in conclusion Things, pro needs to answer at what stage does it become murder to kill a fetus.is it when the mother wants to give birth if not is it worthless there needs to be a clear line drawn by pro. is the fetus any less alive than it was the day before seeing that pro has already conceded the fact that life begins at conception 'While I concede that life does begin at conception, life is not equal to human life' how is it not pro was once a fetus and hasn't got more or less alive. And in answer to pros claims that
A fetus isn't a baby, nor is abortion execution. Even if we make the false assumption that a fetus is a human, it in no way fits the definition of execution, nor is it a baby
If it isn't human which you haven't proven how is it not execution it's human but helpless?
And lastly if the fetus is not human pro is a fetus outside the womb and so am I by pros reasoning so is it moral to kill a baby 2 minutes before it is born no what about a month before that no you study the stages and draw the line where it is human or not and if you were dying and on life support you would not be living independently would that mean your not human because your not living indepinley
on no point has pro-proven his claims only reasons to abort the baby for all of his modern medical research it's hard to argue with stats but he didn't give any. Follow the links which will include evidence and statement from world-famous scientists bottom link is most informative so to end I think we should go by the old value innocent until proven guilty alive until proven dead which pro can't do.
http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com...
http://www.bigccatholics.com...
https://www.youtube.com... please watch https://www.youtube.com... https://www.youtube.com...

http://naapc.org...
ConserativeDemocrat

Pro

Rebuttals:

the sources of my adoption argument were a bit off and I concede that when I did more digging into the matter and found the numbers a bit different. While I concede this point adoption is an option and should be considered way before abortion especially if you can not afford the child.

This doesn't make any sense. Con is saying adoption isn't a viable option at the same time as he is. This doesn't make any sense. I have already proved that only around 100,000 adoptions happen per year, while 750,000 abortions happen each year. There simply isn't a system that will allow us to take care of an extra 750,000 children yearly. What this will lead to is a massive strain on our infrastructure, but more importantly, abandoned children. Many mothers will not want to undergo the adoption process, which will lead to them either killing their baby or abandoning the baby. Voters, what is more moral: A safe abortion that takes place at a time where the fetus is not a human being, can't feel pain, and isn't conscious, or having thousands of babies die painful deaths?

Now on the point of is the fetus alive. Pro makes the same gigantic assumption that I have that the fetus is not alive and feels no pain and has no intrinsic value as pro stated "Without verbal reports and direct access to the mind of a fetus, inferences about what fetuses are able to experience depends on the interpretation of secondary evidence. if you didn't know if a fetus was human or not you probably wouldn't kill it. unless pro can prove with conclusive evidence that that fetus can not feel pain I feel that I win this point because without evidence

Pro has given Con evidence. The nervous system of a fetus is not developed enough to the point where it can feel pain until around the 26th week of pregnancy. Is it possible that this estimate is a little bit off? Yes. But do we seriously believe that it is off by more then 2-3 weeks? Does anyone seriously believe a zygote can feel pain?

Also, Con concedes that abortion before a fetus can feel pain is moral. Instead of attacking the idea that abortion before a fetus is able to feel pain is moral, Con has instead focused in on what specific week fetuses can feel pain. This is a concession of the debate right here.

Furthermore, the reason why medical researchers are unsure of when fetuses can feel pain is because pain is a subjective concept, and there is no objective way to measure it. To explain my evidence more, here is a quote from Anne Davis, a doctor:

"Pain occurs in [the] brain," Davis said. When a person is injured — say, you stub your toe, for example — a signal travels from the foot up through the nerves in the leg to the spinal cord, and then from spinal cord up to the brain, Davis said. Once that signal gets into the brain, the information is transmitted through a complex web of neurons to an area of the brain called the cortex she said."

Why does this matter? Until the brain is developed, it is literally impossible for a fetus to feel pain. Therefore, my original argument stands: Since fetuses can't feel pain until the 3rd trimester, it is morally just to abort a fetus before that point to save the fetus, mother, and family of pain after birth.

"Without verbal reports and direct access to the mind of a fetus, inferences about what fetuses are able to experience depending on the interpretation of secondary evidence. As clearly stated by pro there is no first-hand evidence so It is Clearly not moral to kill the baby.

Do we need first hand evidence? By this logic, the dinosaurs never existed as we have never seen them.

pro asks con for evidence on why fetus equals human life well I assume pro was once a fetus and never stopped being human offspring and has just grown a bit. the fetus is human and in fact alive and not impossible to prove as pro states because I'm alive and kicking and human from the start and didn't change to being a human.

Voters, this isn't actual evidence. Con is merely claiming that fetuses are human beings because Con was once a fetus and is now a human being. Con hasn't actually proved that a fetus is a human being, merely claiming that because since fetuses grow into human beings, they are human beings. Pro has already disproved this, by showing the various human characteristics that fetuses don't exhibit.

So in conclusion Things, pro needs to answer at what stage does it become murder to kill a fetus.is it when the mother wants to give birth if not is it worthless there needs to be a clear line drawn by pro.

Certainly. Once a fetus reaches viablilty, it is murder. At that point, a fetus has developed to a point where if it was born, it would be able to survive on it's own. This point is around 28 weeks [2].



And lastly if the fetus is not human pro is a fetus outside the womb and so am I by pros reasoning so is it moral to kill a baby 2 minutes before it is born no what about a month before that no you study the stages and draw the line where it is human or not and if you were dying and on life support you would not be living independently would that mean your not human because your not living indepinley

No Con, I am not a fetus out of the womb. That is rather insulting. I can walk, talk, play sports, think, read, contemplate life, feel pain, feel love, feel betrayal, feel excitement, and can live out my life. Fetuses can't.

I answered Con's claims about when abortion is murder.

As for Con's claim about how people on life support aren't independent, therefore they aren't human, there are 2 crucial differences to this.

First, as I stated in round 2,
"While we may have various aids to help us survive, we are not connected to another person, therefore we are independent human beings."

Secondly, people on life support have lived independently in the past. Fetuses haven't.

on no point has pro-proven his claims only reasons to abort the baby for all of his modern medical research it's hard to argue with stats but he didn't give any. Follow the links which will include evidence and statement from world-famous scientists bottom link is most informative so to end I think we should go by the old value innocent until proven guilty alive until proven dead which pro can't do.

Con stated the bottom link was the most informative. I looked at the name of the website and immediately stopped. His website is the NAAPC, or the Nation Association for the Advancement of Preborn Children. Sounds like a very biased source.

Conclusion

Voters should give Pro the following points:

Conduct:
Con made multiple ad hominem attacks throughout his argument

S&G:
Con's arguments were hard to read, and there were many spelling and grammar mistakes throughout it.

Sources:
Pro's sources were from neutral websites/scientists, while Con's links were to heavily biased websites.

Arguments:

This is the big one.

Pro's main point throughout the debate was that since fetuses can't feel pain and aren't human beings, it is morally just to abort them in order to stop pain after birth.

Con never attacked this idea, only claiming that fetuses were human beings (without evidence) and attacked Pro's evidence proving fetuses couldn't feel pain until late in the pregnancy. However, Con did not actually dispute Pro's evidence, merely attacking it as it "was secondhand", a mischaracterization of Pro's evidence, as explained above. This is a virtual concession, as Con concedes that abortion before fetal viability isn't immoral.

Finally, Con doesn't have an answer as what to do with fetuses that wouldn't be immoral. Pro believes that the pain that would be brought upon these babies is much greater then any sort of moral misgivings one might have about abortion.

So, since Con conceded, or at least fails to dispute, Pro's point that abortion before viability is moral, Pro should win arguments.

Vote Pro!

Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Roganjoesloan 1 month ago
Roganjoesloan
personal convenience is not a good reason
Posted by ConserativeDemocrat 1 month ago
ConserativeDemocrat
2 things:

1) As I have proved time and time again, a fetus is not a human being. If you continue to claim that, I will not type another word in these comments.

2) As I showed in my opening, abortions only happen for good reasons.
Posted by Roganjoesloan 2 months ago
Roganjoesloan
good debate new at this
Posted by Roganjoesloan 2 months ago
Roganjoesloan
Sorry for my bad spelling I don't believe I must feel for the murder of all things like pro says I can be against unnecessary murder against all things but like anyone, I would save a human over a dog because it would be saving my species first I would feel bad about the dog but wouldn't regret the choice I had made.
Posted by Roganjoesloan 2 months ago
Roganjoesloan
Your not defending yourself over the fact that you conceded the most important point of the debate the fetus being is alive which is needed for any moral argument on pros side and to answer pros question im from a place where we don't cut down a tree without planting more and a tree is not alive like a fetus like you admitted and it is imoral to kill something for no reason I don't kill spiders I put them outside it is immoral to kill something for no good reason the reason I kill cattle is for my food so I servive I eat plant because im an omnevore.
Posted by Roganjoesloan 2 months ago
Roganjoesloan
Your not defending yourself over the fact that you conceded the most important point of the debate the fetus being is alive which is needed for any moral argument on pros side and to answer pros question im from a place where we don't cut down a tree without planting more and a tree is not alive like a fetus like you admitted and it is imoral to kill something for no reason I don't kill spiders I put them outside it is immoral to kill something for no good reason the reason I kill cattle is for my food so I servive I eat plant because im an omnevore.
Posted by ConserativeDemocrat 2 months ago
ConserativeDemocrat
Is it immoral to kill a spider or cut down a tree?
Posted by Roganjoesloan 2 months ago
Roganjoesloan
I'm going to focus on the fact that you ignore defending the most important fact of the whole abortion debate that if the fetus is alive which you agree with that then there is no moral argument for abortion when you coneed the most major point like that you conseeded any debate on morallity. some of pros sources are credible while others have only reasons why people abort babies and I encourage all voters to see all the points like the fact he conceded the most important point that is needed to consider the argument moral that life begins at conception. And other arguments that he pussyfooted around and on a side note the sources I used are using unbiased info that can be found at unbiased sites and what happened to were done here be a man of your word God bless.
Posted by ConserativeDemocrat 2 months ago
ConserativeDemocrat
"Yes, I did read your evidence it was not very credible at best and proved nothing at worst. "

How exactly was it not credible? My research was done by unbiased scientists, and was posted without a political spin in a scientific journal. I have more evidence if you want, and it's better then your "evidence", which was posted in heavily biased online sites.

And stop calling a fetus a baby. They aren't the same. That's like saying a chicken and an egg are the same thing.
Posted by Roganjoesloan 2 months ago
Roganjoesloan
Yes, I did read your evidence it was not very credible at best and proved nothing at worst. My whole argument is based on the fact that the fetus is alive which you conceded to so if the fetus is alive there is no moral argument in which you can kill the baby most pro-abortion people concede that if the baby is alive there is no argument to kill it moraly.
No votes have been placed for this debate.