The Instigator
Matt2603
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
kaiemon
Pro (for)
Losing
2 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...
Matt2603
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/4/2019 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 609 times Debate No: 120175
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

Matt2603

Con

Basic opening statement. I don't believe people should murder babies. I will let the opposing side present an argument first.
kaiemon

Pro

First of all, We need to establish the resolution. Of course murdering babies is bad, But what part of the abortion topic are we arguing? The aspect of when some someone becomes human? The legalization of abortion? The morality?
Debate Round No. 1
Matt2603

Con

Yes, I agree on setting the stage for the debate. I believe that the most argued case is whether or not abortion should be legal and discussing what determines a life and the morality of it would just be characteristics of that argument. Let me know if that is a fair way to establish that. Besides that, I would just like to know in more detail your view on the issue. So, Up to what month/week do you believe that it is ok to murder a baby or do you believe that it is acceptable up until birth?
P. S. Try and make most of your response even if it means asking multiple questions due to the round limit.
kaiemon

Pro

I do believe the legality of abortion is a fair thing to argue. While I do believe abortion should be legal, Unlike many abortion advocates, I believe abortions should be legal only very early on. My stance is that abortion should be allowed until before the 6th week of gestation, A time period in which the embryo is at most risk to many environmental effects and miscarriages ("Fetal development"). I believe that abortion should be legal until this time is because the brain has not fully taken form yet
and the fetus does not yet display complex behavior (R. Joseph). Because the brain, The source of our self-awareness, Has not yet developed, I believe it is justifiable to kill that life, Just as I believe killing bacteria is justifiable.
I do believe that once the cell starts dividing, It can be considered life, But that taking that life is justifiable.

https://medlineplus. Gov/ency/article/002398. Htm
https://pdfs. Semanticscholar. Org/3574/39f63f652f3529bae08e64ca6c25e58552ff. Pdf
Debate Round No. 2
Matt2603

Con

It appears to me that you address two main points here. The first is that within in the first six weeks, "the embryo is at most risk to many environmental effects and miscarriages"(Pro) The second point is you comparing an embryo to bacteria and arguing that it is justified. I will address these two points separately.

Point number 1: You say that the embryo is most at risk to outside factors. This may be true however I see no support to justify a killing. Just because something might happen does not mean you should force it to happen. What I mean by this is a mother having a miscarriage and the embryo dying should not justify that we should be able to kill the embryo because it "might happen". You also brought up in your stance that you believe, "that abortion should be legal until this time [six weeks] is because the brain has not fully taken form yet" Your source regarding pregnancy issued pregnancy to start 2 weeks before the egg and sperm combine which is the moment when life begins and the process of actually growing begins. Another way to look at this is it is impossible to get an abortion at 1-2 weeks using the definition of the first 2 weeks of pregnancy of Medline Plus, Your source for this topic. With this being said, When you analyze Medline Plus, The weeks listed should be subtracted by two to compensate for this. According to this same source, "Your baby's brain forms into 5 different areas. " This is listed under the category of weeks 6-7 and I have already argued that these weeks should really be weeks 4-5. Now, With the brain forming in weeks 4-5, Earlier than week 6, Debunks your reason for aborting before week six, Which was due to the brain not taking form.

Regarding your second argument which states, "I do believe that once the cell starts dividing, It can be considered life, But that taking that life is justifiable" (Pro). It sounds here, Correct me if I am wrong, That you believe that life starts at conception. I recognize this because as soon as conception starts, The two cells that make up that pair instantly start to divide. It appears that you just believe it is justified and frankly there isn't much to argue on that premise. We all have our opinions on what is justified and what isn't and if you believe that it is justified to kill a baby less than 6 weeks old there is not much to argue on that front. Also, People kill bacteria because it literally invades you and makes you sick and depending on the type could kill you. Lastly, I personally don't believe it is fair to compare a 6-week old embryo and something that literally wants to kill you.
kaiemon

Pro

kaiemon forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Matt2603

Con

Matt2603 forfeited this round.
kaiemon

Pro

kaiemon forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by John_C_1812_II 3 years ago
John_C_1812_II
The argument of basic principle is the removal of pregnancy. The description to abort pregnancy means to official stop pregnancy. This idea is then translated to mean a stop in the process after a pregnancy will take place only, Fertilization inside the woman"s body was allowed or took place. The whole truth is a woman requires a female specific amputation as she, All woman are not willing or capable to safely perform all forms of pregnancy abortion that exist. These forms of abortion as a common defense to the general welfare of all woman. No few woman.

The principle now is that similar to or behind the Civil War soldier, Or most War veterans creating death by act of armed conflict in a combat situation, This principle was dealt with directly by relief of command on the use of lethal force by choice presented to all men. Owning gun or not owning a gun rather than the powers of draft or forced induction into military service. The problem is pregnancy abortion cannot create all woman equal this way using the official stop pregnancy as to the relationship for common defense to all woman inline with general welfare of all woman. Woman are not snakes and do no fertilize their own egg. A truth in understanding is all woman knowingly kill a child every time the ovulate process occurs without an attempt to conceive that child. This is not whole truth as fact as a man plays an important part here as well. Both as cause and preservation of life and liberty.

This means as a united state a set as goal created between all women for common defense should reflect a number of constitutional separations to insure these liberties of life so it can be derived in reason to insure a more complete an tranquility union, That at the minimum presents realistic united states created by the actions of independence ask for. By woman, For woman. A state of the union of Prasedera, Woman who sits for the future of all woman sworn to truth United States Constitution with obligation, Oath.
Posted by Hooman 3 years ago
Hooman
Agreed, It's pro's responsibility to set standards for how to judge the debate.
Good luck guys! (or girls)
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
He's right- set guidelines.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jzyehoshua 3 years ago
Jzyehoshua
Matt2603kaiemonTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Better arguments and rebuttals by Con, but sourcing points to Pro. I will say that Pro had a decent position in acknowledging that abortion after 6 weeks is indefensible, and probably could have capitalized on Con's poorly posed initial question by arguing in cases of rare circumstances such as rape and life of the mother (which were allowed even before Roe v. Wade). That said, I think Con won the debate.

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