The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Abortion should in most cases be illegal

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,176 times Debate No: 102250
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)




Round one is just for stating your position and acceptance.

1. No ad hominems
2. No new arguments in final rebuttals
3. standard rules regarding dropped arguments apply.

I will be arguing that abortions should be illegal except for when the pregnancy seriously jeopardizes the life of the mother. I am looking for someone who either believes that abortion should be legal in all instances or should be illegal despite any danger to the life of the mother.



I accept this debate, as Con I will be arguing for the legality of abortion--that it should be legal in all circumstances.

Good luck to Pro.
Debate Round No. 1


I am pleased to have such an interesting moral and philosophical debate and wish the warmest regards to my opponent.

Abortion, despite how it may seem, is not a complicated issue. Either the fetus is alive, and thus is a human life. or it isn't.
there are a number of moral arguments to the debate.
the first moral argument is that scientifically the human fetus meets the criterion to be considered alive from conception (1)" Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity." As we can see, the fetus is genetically human and meets every criterion to be considered alive.

now that we have established that the human life begins at conception I may be faced with the argument from many in favor of abortion that though the organism forming in the womb is alive (if they don't fully reject the known science thus committing fallacy) that it is not a person. this leads me to moral argument number two which is: even if you don't consider the humanity of the organism in the womb, there are plenty of things that exist that are A. not persons. and B. has rights and intrinsic value, for example, dogs or other domesticated animals. To state that simply because you don't consider the human fetus (which is what I shall be referring to the developing child as hereinafter.) to be a person, does not mean that it does not have rights and value. Furthermore, even if you deny the humanity of the fetus, you are still dealing with a potential human life which should be held in higher moral regard than the convenience of the mother or father. Another argument that many of those on the pro-choice side of the argument is that women have the human right to control their bodies. And I am in complete agreement. When it is your body that you are doing something to then you should have every right to do so insofar as it's not self-harm. However, the human fetus is not your body. It is IN your body. as I stated in my first card in the scientific portion of my argument, the human fetus has a separate genetic identity with the restoration of the diploid number of chromosomes. therefore, the human fetus is not a part of the mother's body any more than the child would be after (s)he was born. I hold that the time to control your body would have been before conception IE: using birth control or not having sexual intercourse. one thing that society appears to have forgotten, is that sex is not for pleasure. it is the biological process through which most species ensure the continuation of their species through reproduction (2). if you choose to partake in an action the purpose of which is to reproduce. (thus controlling your body.) then you accept the risk of conception.

Moral argument number 3. does the fetus have any rights, any intrinsic value, and any right to live. well, the collective opinion of society is that the fetus has essentially infinite right to live. when? if and only if the mother decides to keep the child. if she does, society and its laws, regard the fetus with infinte worth and considers it so valuable, that if someone were to kill that child they would be prosecuted for homicide. keeping in mind that the definition of homicide is: the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another (3). we can, therefore see that if the mother decides to keep her child then the law recognizes it as a person. if she doesn't, the fetus is considered worthless with essentially no right to live. now, does that make sense? it doesn't seem to. either the fetus has worth, or it doesn't. on what moral grounds does the mother alone have the right to decide the fetus' worth?

most people would consider killing the baby once it exits the womb as murder. however, the deliberate killing of the fetus a mere two months before is no more morally problematic than extracting a tooth.

and finally, we need to recognize that there are instances when an abortion simply cannot be considered moral. take for example if the mother or father aborts a child because they prefer boys to girls. as has happened millions of times in China and elsewhere. or any other form of bias or preference of the mother or father simply cannot offer moral grounds for the termination of the human life.

I look forward to a rational and well thought out debate and wish my opponent the best of luck. I eagerly await your response.



Thanks Pro; this is quite a serious topic for me and not one I take particularly lightly, as my own mother had an ectopic pregnancy with me--she had to have blood transfusions while pregnant, and almost died in child birth. In the vast majority of cases, the fetus is either aborted or simply does not make it to one/two months never mind full term. I on the other hand was very lucky.

My position is still, however, that abortion should be legal. This argument is primarily based around the impracticalities involving illegal abortion, as I will demonstrate.

Opening Argument:

It should come as no surprise to anyone, than an illegal abortion is far more dangerous than a legal one; so arguing in favor of a legal procedure (one that is carried out by qualified doctors in a medical environment) actually has less to do with what side of the political, religious, or personal spectrum one is on and more to do with what is practical and safe for the woman involved. History has more or less demonstrated that abortion is basically an inevitability, in fact, the first references to various types abortions can be traced back to 1550 BCE (1.)

The Ancient Egyptians did it, the Persians did it, the Romans did it--point being that it happened. The Babylonian Talmud also makes reference to it, stating that when something is a certain shape, it may be aborted. Centuries later types of bans were enforced on the practice, but women still continued to have abortions through whatever means necessary; some able to go to physicians and some not.

In terms of more modern times, illegal abortion has lead to what would be millions of unnecessary and likely extremely painful female deaths, throughout the world. It is a particular problem in developing countries--so much so that according to the World Health Organization, every eight minutes a woman in a developing country, will die as a result of an unsafe abortion (2.)

Countries and states that have very strict abortion laws or outlaw it completely, have a higher mortality rate among women (see above link.) Some of these are not necessarily just attributed to the medical dangers either, but the self-inflicted harm a female can do to herself if she is denied safe access to abortion (3.)

Going back to to 20th century; After the Roe v Wade court case and the decision to legalize abortions nationwide in the U.S (1973), the number of illegal-abortion related complications decreased according to estimates from the National Hospital Discharge Survey (4.)

Once again, countries that haven't made the same improvements like Venezuela, where abortion is illegal, women who do not wish to go through with their pregnancy are confronted with an array of difficulties--from buying dangerous abortion pills on the black market to undergoing procedures such as 'vacuum aspiration', one such woman experienced both as the pills she had purchased has failed to remove the entirety of the fetus (5.)

In regards to *less* developing countries that still disallow abortions; Ireland would a good example. Despite legalizing gay marriage in 2013, abortion is still illegal. Irish women are left with the options of underground abortions or spending money that they don't necessarily have to travel to countries where it is legal, in 2016, the United Nations formally called upon Ireland to reform its legislation and make it legal (6.) and (7.)

It's also important to note that abortion bans, actually have no real impact on the rate of abortions that are performed (8.) and (9.) https:/

Which obviously presents a significant issue to Pros position as there would be little point in making something illegal AND increasing the danger to life/mortality rates, if it had no effect on the practice in question anyway.

So, my stance in this debate is less based around the ideological factors but the non-theoretical ones. The life of an actual living woman, who can feel pain and the horrific effects of unsafe and illegal procedures--who can die without due need, should come before the potential life of a fetus or unborn child.

Fundamentally 'laws' should always exist around what is good for the continuation of life as it is being lived--not as it could be lived, maintaining safe ways for people to exist is what should objectively count.
Debate Round No. 2


First I would like to point out that the majority of my arguments have gone unchallenged (see rule #3) So I have little to do in regard to the defense of my case. My opponent argues that abortion should remain legal due to the fact that people may turn to illegal abortions in order to eliminate their unborn child. As my opponent dropped my first argument that proved scientifically that the fetus is human, and she also dropped the argument where I stated that the child is in fact a person. therefore as a person, the fetus must be afforded the same rights as a child would be granted by society after birth. This would include the right to live. We cannot as a moral society condone the killing of a person simply because we don't want to face the challenge of keeping people from killing their unborn children themselves. There may very well be a simple way to reduce the risk of people performing do-it-yourself abortions. That would be making it very very illegal. Make the penalty for taking your child's life so equal to that of killing your neighbor. As long as the benefit outweighs the risk, people will still be drawn to the procedure. What's better? spending nine months carrying the child you helped create, or spending the rest of your months in jail? Because if abortion is made illegal, it is homicide (see my contention three.) and should be treated as such.

My opponent also makes the point that women may inflict self harm if she is denied abortion. Seeing as this was along with a mortality rate statistic I'm assuming that stat is referring to suicide. If you refer back to my original posting, I stated that I am in favor of the illegality of abortion except for when it endangers the life of the mother. That includes when they are legitimately suicidal. Furthermore, in order to weed out people who may fake being suicidal so they can get away with killing their children, we should first take steps to treat them for major depressive disorder and other mental illnesses that can cause suicidality before we resort to an abortion.

Next I will be moving on to my opponents point that making abortions illegal does not affect the termination rates. I read the article my opponent provided, and once again they refer to illegal abortions. I've already addressed how we may be able to cut back on illegal abortions but I'll reiterate. We need to make the penalty for illegal abortions so severe that very few people will look at that option and think "this seems like it would be worth it" we need to make it a far better option just to go through the pregnancy and get it over with than to terminate the pregnancy yourself. That way even if the risk of harming yourself during the operation isn't enough to dissuade you, you're also running the risk of being prosecuted for homicide.

My opponent also states that we should favor the mother over the child because the mother can feel the pain of an illegal abortion. However, it is a scientific fact that the human fetus can often experience pain at the time of an abortion, which as you can imagine would be extremely painful. you know, having your spine crushed, your skull crushed, having your limbs dismembered then sucked out through a tube in little bloody baby chunks.(1)

I believe that these arguments encompass everything my opponent had to say.

(1) Dr. John Spencer



Pro for some reason thinks that round two is also intended for rebuttals, but in most structured debates it is to outline an opening case. #3 has not been broken as it states that you cannot make new arguments in the FINAL rebuttals; which I assume would be the last round.

Anyway, now I will gladly address his first argument and additional points from his rebuttals.


Pro began his case by offering a basic definition of a fetus; he asserts that the fetus 'meets every criterion to be alive', but using this kind of logic you could also argue that sperm (a living cell) also meets every criteria and should therefore be granted its own set of rights; in fact more, as unlike a developing fetus, sperm can actually survive outside the body. (10.) and (11.)

One could also say that plants are living things, so that the fetus would be considered a living organism is simply a non-issue and most definitely does not constitute a valid argument in making abortion illegal. Here we should only be considering the practical elements involved, law, and what it is there for.

Pro states that other beings that are not 'not persons' are granted rights--he refers to domesticated animals, etc. but this is is pretty much rebutted by the fact that A.) these creatures, or 'living things', are already born. And B.) they present an entirely different set of challenges to that of a child. He's also forgotten that domestic animals also have abortions performed on them, so in that sense, they do not have a great deal in the way of 'rights'.

On the next note, Pro concedes that women 'have a right to control their bodies', which essentially means they can choose whatever happens to them or their bodies--abortion is not an unwanted health problem, it is a choice. A choice that women will make regardless of whether it is legal or not--and the fetus is entirely part of its mothers body, it is unable to survive without it. It is not a 'being' that can make its own decisions or think as a person, so unless something goes wrong with the mother or she loses the fetus, the control over its destiny is entirely in her hands.

Now considering sex, people have it. It is unrealistic and quite frankly overly simplistic for Pro to argue that people should've been 'controlling' their bodies at the time of conception, sex is a very natural process and a large number of pregnancies are unplanned. According to some statistics for the U.S, around 45% are 'unintended' (12.)

Pro again goes back to the point of the fetus somehow having rights, but as it is not a person and instead labeled as a 'a prenatal human between the embryonic state and birth', we can establish that abortion is not the same as a homicide.

Most women who have abortions do so within the initial few weeks of pregnancy as well, when the fetus is even more undeveloped (13.)

So again, Pro talking about the baby exiting the womb is irrelevant, as abortions are not *legally* permitted at this point anyway. A newborn baby is a different thing to a two-week old fetus.

Going back to Pros round three statements, he himself has dropped many points and has seemingly failed to review any of the links I've provided or look at my argument in any depth.

He has failed to show how a developing fetus' life should have equal or more value to a living, human persons life. He mentions making abortion penalties so severe that few women would ever consider having one, which, as I'm sure many can see--would be an extremely harsh and authoritarian measure. Plus as I have argued, it would increase the number of *dangerous* abortions and make the woman far more likely to inflict self-injury upon herself, things that my opening argument and sources addressed.

Pro has also ignored the circumstances in which a woman may be seeking an abortion, such as underage sex, rape, not being financially or emotionally equipped. Would it really be a good idea for abortion to be illegal in these cases? He has placed considerable emphasis on the life of a fetus, without considering the actual people in question would be the women carrying that fetus.
Debate Round No. 3


1. in every structured debate I've ever seen (with the exception of policy debate) has been structured so the second speaker addresses their opponents arguments in their first speech after stating their own case. But it doesn't really matter.

Moving on. My opponent states that because a fetus is alive, and a sperm cell is alive, that unless we want to grant a sperm cell the same rights we would grant to a person, that a fetus should not be granted rights. However, this argument falls under the fallacy colloquially known as "apples and oranges" or drawing comparisons between events or sets of circumstances that seem to share a common denominator but are in fact distinct from one another by virtue of having occurred during different time periods, in different places, under different socio-economic conditions, to different groups of people, etc., can lead to the incorrect assumption that, just because something is true under one set of circumstances, it will necessarily hold true for all circumstances of a similar sort. The act of making such comparisons is sometimes referred to as "comparing apples and oranges."(1) as a sperm cell is not a fetus one of the main differences being that a sperm cell only contains the haploid number of chromosomes and is as a result, not human. as opposed to the fetus which contains the diploid number of chromosomes and as such, has a complete human genome. (I cite the same source I used in my first case.) the fact that a sperm cell can survive outside of the body and a fetus cannot is irrelevant and inconsequential. This same fallacy has been applied to the next point about plants being alive.

Next, my opponent states that my point about giving things that aren't people rights is invalid for a few reasons.

1. they are living things. as I stated in my previous statement, the fetus is alive Scientifically. The fetus is human scientifically. Therefore, that argument holds no sway due to the fact that the fetus is also alive. The fact that they are already born is irrelevant. Life does not begin at birth.

2. they represent an entirely different set of challenges from children. the challenges that my opponent speaks of would be either pregnancy or childrearing. Since it's probable that she meant both, I will address both challenges. For the challenge of pregnancy, I would point out that you shouldn't have had sex if you weren't willing to carry a child. Sex is not for pleasure. Sex is for reproduction. If you partake in an action the biological purpose of which is the survival of a species through reproduction and don't expect to reproduce you have made a drastic logical error. We cannot strip something that is scientifically both alive and human of the right to life simply because two people made a mistake. For the difficulties of raising the child, I would point out that raising the child yourself is not required. You could put them into foster care, you could put them up for adoption, you could even just leave the baby at the fire station and they would take care of everything no questions asked.

Next, my opponent addresses another one of my points without actually talking about the point itself. Yes, women have the right to control their body. But the fetus is not a part of their body. they are IN their body. as for the point that the fetus cannot make decisions or think as a person that the mother can eliminate it at her discretion. scientific studies have shown that true self-awareness does not even begin to develop until around 15-24 months. Long after the baby has been born.(1) does this mean that if a child somehow threatens the liberty of the parents after being born that killing them should be legal as their right to life is inferior? this seems to be the case as my opponent has ceded that the fetus will be considered a person and as such should be treated as a person would. Perhaps, my opponent meant simple consciousness? if this were the case, then they would have to recognize that what we would call consciousness does begin in the womb. (2) One should also consider simply the logical and very real consequences if a "person" is defined only in terms of the actual exercising of "rational attributes" or of "sentience." What would this mean for the following list of adult human beings with diminished "rational attributes": e.g., the mentally ill, the mentally disabled, the depressed elderly, Alzheimers and Parkinsons patients, drug addicts, alcoholics and for those with diminished "sentience," e.g., the comatose, patients in a "vegetative state," paraplegics, and other paralyzed and disabled patients, diabetics or other patients with nerve or brain damage, etc.? Would they then be considered as only human beings but not also as human persons? Would that mean that they would not have the same ethical and legal rights and protections as those adult human beings who are considered as persons? Is there really such a "split" between a human being and a human person? this is, of course dealing with legal rights.

For my opponents argument regarding sex, yes people have it. and yes sex is natural. A natural way of ensuring the survival of a species through reproduction. Having sex for any reason other than to reproduce is illogical. As for the statistic that 45% of pregnancies are unintended. that doesn't change the fact that in the vast majority of cases two people consented to have sex, and because sex is the natural process through which reproduction occurs, they reproduced. We cannot as a moral society strip away a right to life because of that error.

My opponent states that a fetus doesn't have rights because they are called 'a prenatal human between the embryonic state and birth.' Nowhere in there does it state that the fetus is not a person that label recognizes humanity as it is a scientific definition, but once you get into personhood you branch away from science and move towards philosophy. Because of this, this label is not sufficient evidence to show that the fetus is not a person and therefore does not have the right to exist. My opponent also states that abortion is not the same as homicide. In an abortion, you are ending the existence of a fetus. if someone were to kick a pregnant woman's womb, they would also be ending the existence of the fetus. society and its laws view the fetus as a person and would prosecute whoever killed the fetus with homicide if and only if the mother decides to confer personhood and rights on to the child. So we can establish that abortion could, in fact, meet the definition of homicide if abortion were to be made as illegal as killing the child through any other manner.

My opponent also states that the fetus is usually mostly undeveloped when an abortion usually occurs. That doesn't really matter. Simply because the fetus doesn't look human doesn't mean it's not. they have the diploid number of chromosomes and a complete human genome. scientifically, you are ending the existence of a human being even if an abortion occurred the moment of fertilization.

My opponent states that a newborn baby is different from a two-week old fetus. the only scientific difference is the level of development which is irrelevant to humanity. The only difference that really matters in the abortion argument is that society won't let you kill a newborn.

If you want me to attack arguments, they have to be in your case. I have things to do. I'm not going to not only attack your case but then analyze all of your sources and attack every single one of their arguments too. I wouldn't expect that of you either.

my opponent has stated that a fetus' life should not have equal value to a living human person's life. well. they are living. and they are humans. Those are scientific facts. next, my opponent calls my solution harsh and authoritarian. My proposition is no different from how we deter all crimes. We don't want people stealing so we make the penalty outweigh the benefits. We don't want people giving themselves dangerous and illegal abortions, so we make the penalty outweigh the benefit. it's logical. My opponent also mentioned self-injury, if you look back at my initial statement, I am opposed to abortion as long as the pregnancy does not endanger the life of the mother. if the mother is genuinely suicidal, then she may have an abortion. For the details of that argument, see my previous post.

Underage sex if it was consensual falls under my previous argument. Rape accounts for an insignificant minority (less than one percent) (3) so I suppose we can allow abortions then in order to save the other 99.9% of children. And again my opponent fails to recognize the scientific humanity and the infinite potential of the fetus. and I'm out of characters.


**Closing Arguments**

In the vast majority of debates on this site, it's commonplace that each side provides their opening arguments first--and then rebuttals. So I'd like to clarify again that Pros case was not 'dropped', as he claimed it to be.

My point about the fetus, sperm cell was to illuminate that one cannot simply conclude that on the basis of a fetus being alive, that it should automatically be granted the same rights as a fully-formed human being, who can survive and exist outside the womb. I would also highlight that the fetus, is only classified as such at the 8th week of pregnancy. Prior to that, it is considered an embryo (14.)

And, as I have mentioned previously in the debate, most women have an abortion in the very early stages of pregnancy;it does not take long for a woman to realise she is pregnant at all and the women who do think abortion is the best option are, overall, pretty decisive about their decision.

According to some studies as well, one in three women (in the U.K) will actually have an abortion in their life (15.)

Which raises my point again about the practicality of Pros contention--that abortion, in most cases, should be illegal. It would not stop abortion and most certainly would not make it safer.

Responding further to my argument about fetus-sperm cell, just because the two things are technically different, it doesn't make the comparison any less valid. Pros contention was that the 'aliveness' gives it rights, but this is a weak statement as it can be applied to other living things.

Now we go onto the point about not having sex, if you can't rear children. This further draws attention to impractical and unrealistic theme to Pros argument--people will and do have sex for pleasure, and sometimes unintended consequences come as a result of that. In the case of it being unwanted pregnancy, the question should be over what is the best and safest option for the mother and the child; for the mother it should be what is essentially safest, and for the (potential) child it should be what is essentially best.

It certainly, by societal standards, would not be best for the child to be reared in a home environment in which it would not be wanted or indeed not have the necessary nourishment that it requires--say if it was conceived during a one-night-stand, fling, or simply to two people who weren't ready for children yet.

So the argument that 'sex is for reproduction' is a fallacious one, sex naturally can result in reproduction, but it is not exclusively for that specific purpose.

If this was the case, what would Pro say to women that can't biologically have children (or to men who can't) yet still wish to have sex? Are they somehow to abstain because they cannot have children?

Pro also mentions other alternatives, like putting your child up for adoption or into foster care. But this presents an entire different set of challenges--firstly, that emotional bond with a human that is NOW developed and existing outside the womb, is harder to break. And, the world of adoption I can imagine is quite difficult.

Firstly there is no guarantee the child would immediately have a home, and there is also no guarantee that it would *definitely* go to a good one and/or that the adoption would be successful in the long-term (16.)

In fact it is estimated that for children under the age of 3, disruption rates (with adoption) range from 10% to 16% (17.)

The article also states that for teens it may well be as high as 25%.

What Pro is basically arguing is that on the basis of a small embryo or fetus somehow having the same rights as developed humans, that if the embryo or fetus is unwanted, the developed humans should put it up for adoption and enter it into a world unknown--of course to Pro, it doesn't matter that with each unwanted child, it would be a greater strain on society and in the case of adoption, on the social services.

To Pros next point--again, the fetus IS part of a woman's body actually because of that very reason (existing within their body.)

Everything that is in your body (organs, bones, etc.) is a part of it--and an embryo or fetus that are certainly no exceptions.

Pro goes into sex again, but only refers to two people 'consenting' for it; he leaves out rape as a way for women having an unwanted pregnancy.

I think I have summarised most of what needs to be summarised here; my key points being that an embryo and a fetus or not the some as an existing human being, that unwanted pregnancies do inevitably happen, and that the response should be to maintain abortions as safe and legal procedures.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by passwordstipulationssuck 3 years ago
I ran out of space in my argument so I'll be posting my sources here
Posted by Emilrose 3 years ago
Pro, they are not unchallenged...that was my opening argument, round 3 is generally used for rebuttals.
Posted by MAD3 3 years ago
John_C_1812 I have to disagree with you. no one should ever have an abortion even if it threatens the woman's life. for an abortion is a murder and it stains your soul.
Posted by MAD3 3 years ago
John_C_1812 I have to disagree with you. no one should ever have an abortion even if it threatens the woman's life. for an abortion is a murder and it stains your soul.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
" I will be arguing that abortions should be illegal except for when the pregnancy seriously jeopardizes the life of the mother. I am looking for someone who either believes that abortion should be legal in all instances or should be illegal despite any danger to the life of the mother."

Pro you will not be arguing that abortion is illegal you in fact will be arguing that murder is illegal, which it is, however it is not as a result of the confession made by a person. All the time never arguing if the confession made by the person is illegal which in many cases for many reason is not a legal confession.

The person arguing that abortion should be legal will be in fact be attempting to justify a type of Female Specific Amputation, under only a presumption making a self-incriminating confession publicly that something illegal is going to happen. While avoiding the Constitutional responsibility leaving a woman alone to weight the consequence of cruel and unusual punishment on herself and child, without Constitutional Separation held in place as a common defense. This also in fact breaks laws found by basic principle.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
Your not debating the principle of the issue that is made by reported grievance, your asking either justified homicide should be legal or a confession to criminal murder should be made legal. That is why rule of law does not work.

When defending the United States Constitution one of the many Basic laws that can be broken by legislators is Bribery. Legislators write law and by legalizing Abortion they are not making murder legal just the woman's confession to planning a murder.

In defending the United States Constitution in this matter the point of debate. Gender Specific Amputation is not abortion and therefore is legal in all conditions deemed by extent of medical emergency.
Posted by Emilrose 3 years ago
I'd debate this...
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Should be an interesting debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.