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


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: 12/18/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 739 times Debate No: 119520
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




Whoever is pro-abortion, I would like you to make your opening argument before I do.


I am not FOR abortion any more than i am for alcoholism and heroin addiction. . What i am for is the government and churches and noisey people staying out of peoples personal lives. . Aint nobodies bidness if you do. . But think about it. . You can't take it back
Debate Round No. 1


I both agree and disagree with your statement. I am not in favor of having the government controlling much of peoples' lives. I believe that the 2nd amendment should not be repealed. Also, Communism or socialism would be terrible for our nation. Both of these things show the government limiting the peoples' power and their say. The people should have as much of a say as possible.

This is the part where I disagree. You mentioned heroin and alcoholism. Heroin is illegal to protect people and the place they are living in. Public intoxication is illegal for the same exact thing, Protection for both the person and the community.

That is exactly why I believe abortion should be illegal. I believe that abortion is murder and there is science to back it up. If heroin never harmed anyone, Why should it be illegal? If public intoxication was safe, Why there be any need to make it a crime? The sad reality is that people do these things and get harmed by them. Abortion does harm just like heroin and alcoholism do. Hope to hear back from you soon.


Reproduction is the most personal issue, How hypocritical can one be if one says they want the government out of peoples lives but insist on sticking a big police floodlight up a womens snatch? I embrace big government since you brought it up, I would be in favor of a liberal sort of socialism or social democracy like in western europe where the market is preserved private in dustry dominates but a welfare state taxes care of people, Regualtions protect the environment and workers, Adn taxation redistributes wealth. I 'd love to abolish the Second amendment it is absurd to think a bunch of over weight drunken civilians could take on the us government which has the best rained and equaoped soldiers with some semi automatic ar 15s. . All that the gun culture does is create chaoes and death, And yet as much as i love to interfere, As much as i embrace the nanny state EVEN I would not dare to think the government has any business in the bed room or regualting human reproduction in any way
Debate Round No. 2


Just because I believe in a smaller, Government does not mean tat I do not think they can make important decisions that affect peoples' lives. What I mean is that I do not want a government that dictates what a person will be when they are an adult, What religion they should follow, If they have free speech, Or anything like that. A good example would be slavery. Slavery destroyed African Americans' life, Liberty, And their pursuit of happiness. A decision had to be made that would affect America forever. In this situation, The government had to step in.

This relates to abortion because abortion violates the unborn baby's life, Liberty, And their pursuit of happiness that the Declaration of Independence promised all people should have. If the government did not make any important decisions on immigration, Gun rights, Gay marriage, Taxes, Or freedom of speech, There would be no point in having a government.

Thomas Jefferson said that he wanted the American people to barely remember that there is an American government. I partially agree with him. I do not believe America's government should be extremely powerless, But I do believe the power should be limited.

Abortion is just as controversial today as slavery was in 1861. Slavery, An important part to many of the Southern Americans, Was fixed. Slavery abused human rights. Since abortion also abuses human rights, Why can that not be fixed?


But you are willing to regualtes an adults reproductive conduct, Do you even have any idea how contradictory, And hypicritical thats is? ITS INSANE! Get that catholic, Or evangelical protestant nonsense out of your head.
Debate Round No. 3


Saying that I am a hypocrite when I have clearly shown that I am not is where you are wrong. Also, That evangelical/Protestant nonsense is backed up by science, So I do not think it is considered nonsense.


According to science human life begins with brain activity, Accoding to the bible it begins when the child takes its first breath, A fetus is not the same thing as a human being
Debate Round No. 4


According to science, There are seven things that determine life.
-Responding to their environment
-Growth and change
-Reproduction (this means that a being is able to reproduce one time in their life. Saying a fetus is not a life because of this is like saying a young child is not life because they cannot reproduce. )
-Having a metabolism and breathing. (A fetus can breathe, Just not on its own power. )
-Being made of cells
-Expelling waste
-The passing of traits to offspring
This may vary based on what source you use, But all of the sources I found all said things that a fetus does or has.

As for the Bible, I believe you are referring to Genesis 2:7 when it talks about God breathing in the breath of life into Adam and how he became alive when that was breathed into him. Since Adam was the first human, He could obviously not have been born the way people are born. God did not just breathe life into Adam though, He breathed the breath of life, God's own breath. God did not breathe the breath of life into other animals, Just Adam. Eve also had the breath of life in her from Adam. This is only referring to Adam and nobody else.

Genesis 7:15 is not a counter to what I just previously said. It talks about when animals got on the ark, They were filled with the breath of life. The word breath in 7:15 and 2:7 are used in different words in the Greek. 2:7 means more doing with the soul that 7:15 does. Since 7:15 was about the animals going onto the ark, God directed them to the ark not by their own power, But his. This dies not refer to the breath of life Adam received in 2:7.

Abortion is debunked both by science and by the Bible. I believe women should have the same rights as men, But I do not believe a woman should have the right to do this. I know you are probably thinking I am a hypocrite, But I encourage you, Myself, And everyone reading this to still do more research on this controversial topic. We cannot rely on sources we do not look into ourselves.


This paper suggests that medically the term a 'human being' should be defined by the presence of an active human brain. https://www. Ncbi. Nlm. Nih. Gov/pubmed/4078859he author advocates a brain-life theory of humanness, Which asserts that the fetus is biologically a human being at the point at which its brain begins to function. Human life is thus viewed as a continous spectrum between the onset of brain life in utero at 8 weeks' gestation and the occurrence of brain death

  • Fetal viability, The ability of a fetus to survive outside of the uterus
I am loath to force a women to bear a child i AM LOATH TO impose my values on others, That is the difference between me and your catholic tyranny, Or evangelical protestant tyranny which is actually worse, At least cathlics like to have a good time now and then, Protestants are so boring

Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by OisinMullarkey 3 years ago
"I am loath to force a women to bear a child i AM LOATH TO impose my values on others, That is the difference between me and your catholic tyranny, Or evangelical protestant tyranny which is actually worse, At least cathlics like to have a good time now and then, Protestants are so boring"

So if someone murdered your family you'd be okay with it because you don't want to impose your values on another individual?
Posted by Unitedstates 3 years ago
So if a person has severe Alzheimer's and cannot think, Talk, Walk, Or move, Could they be killed and that would not be considered a murder. If the family thought it was too hard to take care of them, Could they just be killed?

Also, If science says one thing about the classification of life, Then a person just decides to change that, Is that automatically considered true. If I say that sugar is good for people, Provide evidence (whether it is true or false) that does not make it science.
Posted by billsands 3 years ago
aint nobodies biznes if you do, This country is not run by the catholic church in fact it was founded to insure that catholics could never rule here. . This catholic nonsesne this inquisition era tyranny stands in conflict with the very protestant notion of individual accountability respsibility and liberty, The state cannot interfere in this way, Not in a protestant nation that values liberty
Posted by John_C_1812_II 3 years ago
The basic principle of pregnancy abortion is an admission of guilt to a felony crime. This is what is described by the description of chosen words. There was a legal precedent set by admission of guilt by law for judicial separation as these type admission create self-incrimination without regulation. Depending on the law description some of these penalties involve the loss of Civil Right to Vote.
The Freedom of Speech being part of the first Amendment describes that a description by admission of crime is being committed that would otherwise need attention. The idea of pregnancy abortion being only accusation by religion is not the whole truth.
I am Pro-Pregnancy abortion because there is a constitutional right to admit to a crime that cannot be oppressed. This admission of guilt to a crime should be questioned. Any question of the admission results in the alibi for the crime, And not a United State Constitutional separation made on behalf self-regulation.
The point is an admission of guilt does not have to be used by all woman as a united state in this matter, As a female specific amputation may in fact be a legal form of aborting as a process when proven it does not hold the admission of guilt. As abort means to official stop something that has official started. Both sides of the human fertilization process involve something that is scientifically alive, The two lives are combined to simple possibly lengthen life. By not uniting this life we are in fact killing it regardless. This is the common state of the argument by Constitutional principle.
The argument by basic idea is over a right to perform human sacrifice as a united state for woman and medical science both as they are seeking this privilege by public consent. When in truth is the couples themselves who are the creator of these lives bear the burden of their length in either choice.
The United State that is formed by this union is citizenship, A pregnancy is by legal point an application for citizensh
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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