The Instigator
micellio
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheMarketLibertarian
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 982 times Debate No: 102014
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (1)

 

micellio

Con

Abortion is the biggest moral sin that we as a society have accepted since slavery. A woman's "right" to choose whether her child lives or dies is unacceptable and should be prohibited. Every person's life has meaning and to rob an unborn child of their right to life is a horrendous act that should never go unpunished. I am not saying I want to control what a woman does with her body but I am saying that everyone must follow the law and not commit murder.
TheMarketLibertarian

Pro

OK- first of all, a fertalized egg is not a human being. It's not murder because it is a f*cking sex cell!
Debate Round No. 1
micellio

Con

To every person the time when a child is considered to be living changes. So at what point is this child actually considered to be a person? Not at conception when the magic begins as you claim. How about six weeks when it starts to form ears, a mouth, and a nose and has a heartbeat pumping what is often a different blood type than that of the mother. Or at seven weeks when it begins to form hands and feet. How about week ten when it begins to grow organs. By the end of week thirteen, it has its own unique fingerprints and working kidneys. By week eighteen, it has developed its reproductive organs and may not even be the same gender as the mother. The rest of the time the child is growing bigger and maturing its brain and lungs until it comes out for that first sweet breath of air. So again I ask when does a person become a person.
When you have a pregnant friend you ask them how the baby is coming not "How's the sex cell doing today".

The child's DNA is different from its mothers from the moment of conception. While this child is still attached to its mother it itself is not a part of her body. It is a separate life form that will have a close bond with this person for life. I do not care if a woman gets a tattoo, piercings, breast enlargements/reductions, plastic surgery or whatever. What a woman can not do however is get away with murder, and that is what abortion is. "pro-choice" advocates get upset when pro-life people hold up a picture of the dead child recently aborted or will try to lock away the people who showed how Planned Parenthood was harvesting the organs of the unborn children instead of the monsters at Planed Parenthood. There is a reason Norma McCorvey known better as Jane Roe spent the second half of her life fighting for life. The immoral action that is murder kills the sole. I see no difference in the act of having an abortion that the despicable act that Dylan Roof made when he shot up that church.

One hundred from now we will look back on abortion the same way we look at slavery today.

https://www.babycenter.com...
http://www.lifenews.com...
TheMarketLibertarian

Pro

Life starts when the embryo develops grey matter, and then it'sneurons start firing. Just ecause it has organs and limbs, which I seriously doubt about embryos, that doesn't mean it's alive. A dead corpse isn't alive, but it likely has limbs and organs, what is the difference between shooting a living person, and shooting a corpse? What makes one murder and the othr not is this magic thing called "brain activity," which doesn't start until 20 weeks after conception.
Debate Round No. 2
micellio

Con

The comparison of a living, growing person to that of a dead person is sickening. Do you also look down on the disabled because they don't function the same as you? A person is a person inside the womb or out and nobody has the right to kill it. Every human life matters and has meaning. There is a reason women who have abortions are three times more likely to commit suicide than other women of the same ages and ten times as likely to commit suicide if they are still in their teens. Eighty-one percent of them have mental health problems develop after they abort. Forty-five percent of women report having suicidal feelings immediately after the abortion takes place. Two in three women or sixty-seven percent can be diagnosed with PTSD following the murder if it occurs after the twelve-week mark (eight weeks before you view it as a human). The risk of alcohol abuse rises by one hundred and ten percent for women following the abortion. http://healthresearchfunding.org...

Murder kills the soul and as millions of people have found out abortion is murder. The cost of killing your own child is often not just the life of your unborn baby but also that of yourself. The choice to have the child takes place before the penis ever enters the vagina. By that point as consenting to sex, you take on any risk that may come with your actions. If a person is too immature to take care of a child maybe they should think about that before having sex. As a man, you should be shunned by society if you don't marry the woman who you knock up.

Stop abortions. Stop the meaningless slaughter of babies.
TheMarketLibertarian

Pro

More like an emotional rant founded on false premise- a fertilized egg is still not a growing human, it is a sex cell. Take a look at it.
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: SolonKR// Mod action: NOT Removed<

0 points awarded. Reasons for voting decision: Con tried to show that abortion shouldn't be a choice because it's "murder". I'm voting on how both sides addressed this question. Con's mental health argument is irrelevant for this reason; the "would this happen if it weren't murder?" is silly. Con says that we can't say when life begins--features we might find important for life develop as far back as conception. Pro says life begins at 20 weeks with brain activity... and that's pretty much it. Con's other arguments weren't good, so I won't mention them. I can be charitable to Con and assume his argument would be that "since we don't know when life starts, err on the side of life". But that's clearly not his intention, and I'm supposed to judge what both sides actually said. Neither side supported their points, so this is a tie. Other comments in... well, the comments.

[*Reason for non-removal*] If the voter chooses not to award points, then all that is required of them in an RFD is to provide feedback. The voter does that, so this vote is sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: JimShady// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: I'm Pro-Life, explaining why I agree with micellio before and after. As for conduct, I'll give it a tie since the bad word wasn't directed AT the Con. S/G is tied. Sources for TheMarketLibertarian are nonexistent, and thus cannot be more reliable that Con's, so 2 points to Con. For arguments, I highly disagree with the previous voter. Pro just says the human is a sex cell and does not explain why (see comments). He also pulls out that brain activity is what defines life. Con very smartly brings up disabled who have no brain function, and yet they are still alive. As for Con's arguments, he brings up when life begins, and when Pro says differently, he refutes him. Con brings up that the human is a separate entity with its own features separate from the mother. He also brings up emotional problems of past abortion-receivers. I can't believe the previous vote, massive victory for Con in my opinion.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter doesn"t explain sources.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: QueenDaisy// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments), 1 points to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Pro used swear words completely unnecessarily, hence the conduct to Con. Both parties made plenty of spelling and grammar errors, and these seemed to be in roughly equal proportions. Con just asserted that abortion was murder but didn't justify this premise. Though brief, I feel Pro's point that an egg cell is just that- a cell- was enough to dismiss Con's assertion. Con provided thoroughly unreliable sources while Pro provided none at all.

[*Reason for removal*] S&G may only be awarded on the basis of swear words if the side that used them was insulting. Unless that is clarified as being the case, it is not sufficient for the voter to use this as a reason to award this point.
************************************************************************
Posted by SolonKR 1 year ago
SolonKR
Both of you:
1. Read other people's debates. Look at http://www.debate.org... for example. It will help you learn how to structure your own arguments. One good tactic before you debate about something is to read debates that have been done about it before. Just make sure not to plagiarize their cases.
2. Read #11-14 here: http://www.debate.org....
3. Sign up for the upcoming beginners' tourney. Sign-ups aren't up yet, but if you let me know you're interested, I can reserve a spot for you.
Posted by SolonKR 1 year ago
SolonKR
Pro:
1. Use sources. You might know what you're talking about, but a judge can't know unless you show them it's true. Give me a source that shows me brain activity begins at 20 weeks if you want to argue that.
2. Explain your argument. Why does brain activity matter? Sources would help here, too.
3. Use your space. You probably had 8000 characters. You can say more than one point per round, and it will help you make better arguments in the long-run.
Posted by SolonKR 1 year ago
SolonKR
Con:
1. That "Health Research Funding" blog you take sources from is sketchy af. 2 minutes and I found this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.... Much better source, and you can still use it to support your point (but a much less extreme point). Look for better sources when you debate. Judges DO glance at them.
2. Say what you're specifically arguing at the beginning, and stick with that. If you were arguing that abortion should be illegal, I could have voted Con because Pro basically conceded the mental illness point.
3. Don't make new arguments in the last round. That gives whoever goes last a huge advantage if they make new arguments, too.
Posted by JimShady 1 year ago
JimShady
How is a fertilized human zygote a sex cell? A sex cell is either an egg or sperm brought about by meiosis with one half the human genome. When they combine in verbalization, they cease being sex cells and are instead a zygote. The human zygote now has the same amount of DNA info as a full grown human. Science.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
The best I can do is say it is a lie and is actual process was a Gender Specific Amputation.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
First sboss18 1

The word abortion is a self-incriminating confession of murder. Which means if a person where to believe the confession is true, they become associated to the crime because the confession is a self-incriminating confession. We are saying we are going to commit or just accept a murder taking place. Gender Specific Amputation is a confession that can take the place of abortion because as the witness in the public there is no medical details, and the witness cannot have them without violating a patient"s privacy. This describes a Weapon brought to bear as Arm by the second Amendment.

ThemarketLibertarian,

You argument is a lie plain and simple. If any licensed Medical doctor were to start chemically neutralizing fertilized embryos or damaging them intentionally in a woman"s womb, without the woman"s self-incriminating confession in writing the doctor would be immediately arrested when caught.
The damage was done to the Center of all world trade, the implosion took place and now damage control is asking prove Gender Specific Amputation violates a woman"s privacy? A medical doctor has a Hippocratic Oath what oath are you taking?
Posted by TheMarketLibertarian 1 year ago
TheMarketLibertarian
The Muslims claim there are benefits to FGM- its a petty excuse.

And no, the child wouldn't be dead, he'd either be alive or never exist.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SolonKR 1 year ago
SolonKR
micellioTheMarketLibertarianTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Con tried to show that abortion shouldn't be a choice because it's "murder". I'm voting on how both sides addressed this question. Con's mental health argument is irrelevant for this reason; the "would this happen if it weren't murder?" is silly. Con says that we can't say when life begins--features we might find important for life develop as far back as conception. Pro says life begins at 20 weeks with brain activity... and that's pretty much it. Con's other arguments weren't good, so I won't mention them. I can be charitable to Con and assume his argument would be that "since we don't know when life starts, err on the side of life". But that's clearly not his intention, and I'm supposed to judge what both sides actually said. Neither side supported their points, so this is a tie. Other comments in... well, the comments.