Is Abortion Immoral?
Debate Round Forfeited
Draughtsperson has forfeited round #1.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | Select Winner | ||
| Started: | 9/18/2017 | Category: | Philosophy | ||
| Updated: | 1 year ago | Status: | Debating Period | ||
| Viewed: | 328 times | Debate No: | 104018 | ||
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)
 Pro My goal as Pro is to prove that abortion is immoral. My opponent may try to prove that abortion is not immoral. This debate isn't about whether abortion has or can have benefits - rather, whether it is immoral or not. By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to the following definitions: Immoral: Not conforming to accepted standards of morality. Morality: Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Abortion: The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy while the fetus is still inside the body. Kill: Cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing). By accepting, my opponent also agrees that it is immoral to kill a human without just cause. First round is acceptance only. I look forward to a well thought-out and civil debate. This round has not been posted yet. |
 |
|
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet. |
 |
|
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet. |
 |
|
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet. |
 |
|
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet. |
 |
This debate has 8 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.
I understand that the odds are very, very much in favor of there having been pregnant women during the Great Flood. However, I get very technical sometimes, so just give me a break in that one.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Also, you seem to be arguing that humans have all of the same rights that God does.
https://www.youtube.com... - Amon Ra blisters the flood
https://www.youtube.com... - Creat"on"st Ken Ham Blames Athe"sts For Failing Noah's Ark Park
https://www.youtube.com... - Why people Laugh at Creationists 44 Ken Ham"s Ark
https://www.youtube.com... - the math of the great flood)
https://www.youtube.com... - Seth Andrews Ark Encounter HILARIOUS!
https://www.youtube.com... - Reading Ken Ham"s ridiculous Tweets
https://www.youtube.com... - How archaeology proves the great flood is false
2. Do you have any proof that anyone during the Great Flood was pregnant? Dumb christian uneducated super duper unintelligent teeny bopper question. Now you think about that question.
3. "I do not believe that it is hypocritical to be Christian and also be pro-life" there's a very big difference from being "pro life" and not understanding the struggles of what is right and wrong. A perfect example: Do you believe a 12 year old girl who was raped beaten and tortured by daddy twice per week since the age of 4, now 8 months pregnant who in no way shape or form can take care of the tiger should NOT have a LEGAL abortion? If not, then YOU with all of YOUR qualities, YOU take care of the little one.
But then again since YOUR christian god who brings in millions of children to be aborted every single year and founded abortion in the first place, you pay attention to something that is amazingly hypocritical and contradictory. YOUR god kills. Why---not---man? Indeed YOUR god in which you have no proof for even existing, plucks something out of thin air and is expected to believe it AND expects everyone else to believe it without a shred of proof.
Pehaps another time.
1. I believe that the Great Flood did happen, and I don't consider myself dumb for doing so.
2. Do you have any proof that anyone during the Great Flood was pregnant?
3. I do not believe that it is hypocritical to be Christian and also be pro-life - quite the contrary.
@Draughtsperson I suppose I may have been a little to technical with that, although I don't think it'll harm the debate to specify.
@backwardseden Would you care to elaborate?
That's basically the same thing as saying 'Immoral: not moral' - because we only ever know any thing through its accepted standards, or deliberate re-evaluations thereof.
Allow a couple of rounds for a little discussion of how to best define morality, and I'm in.