Instigator / Pro

Tickbeat

1500

rating

debates

50.0%

won

Topic

#5208

Abortion is NOT healthcare, it is murder.

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Winner

After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Barney

Tags

Morality

Abortion

pro-life

Parameters

Publication date: 01.28.2024 02:28AM
Last updated date: 02.18.2024 06:21AM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 5
Time for argument: One week
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: Two weeks
Point system: Winner selection
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

Barney

1815

rating

debates

100.0%

won

Description

Abortion is when a mother makes the decision to end the life of the baby they have in their womb, usually when it is a growing fetus. People say that abortion is healthcare, and that it is a mother's choice, thus, those people are referred to as pro-choice. On the other side, we have people who say that we are all human, and even a fetus is a life, and abortion is murder. These people are pro-life. I am pro-life, and intend to debate somebody on the opposite side.

Round 1

Tickbeat

01.28.2024 03:46PM

Pro

Abortion is when a mother ends the life of the baby (usually a fetus) in their womb. People like to say that it's nothing more than a fetus, and it's not even conscious yet, so it's okay to kill it. But tell me. When does it become not okay to kill your baby? Is there a fine line? If there is not, is it possible to murder a baby in the womb and have it be a gray area for whether or not it is wrong? Tell me, is someone considered less human the younger they are, just because they are less developed than a grown adult? They say that it is a mother's choice, but is it really a mother's choice to decide the fate of another human life? That little fetus will never get the chance to experience the physical world, ever. Even if she has a baby later on, it will never be the baby she once had. Is it the "mother's choice" to decide whether or not a human being is going to live their life? As a Christian, I know that when these babies die, they will go to heaven. But this is still murder regardless, and is wrong. And deciding the fate of your own child would be horrifying if they were born or even a few years old. If a mother's baby is already born, what's stopping them from just killing it because it's not the right time? A mother can't just end a real human life because it's not the right time. Even if the mother didn't want to parent her child, she could just give them up for adoption and a good foster home. The fetus is a life, and just because it is a fetus doesn't mean it is less human. We are all human. That baby is human. That fetus is human. And you have no right to end its life for it. It has never even been able to think and you've already decided its fate for it. And the fact that people are still doing these is sad. One day, they are gonna meet those babies in heaven, and they will stare directly into the face of someone they chose to murder against their will. Have fun with that.

Barney

01.28.2024 09:08PM

Con

Preamble:

I shall prove my case on two fronts, which shall be given their own sections below

Abortions are Healthcare
Abortions are not Murder

Burden of Proof

The resolution has two clauses, if pro fails at either he has lost.

Definitions

My opponent has provided the following definitions within the comment section:

Healthcare is “The prevention, treatment, and management of illness and the preservation of mental and physical well-being through the services offered by the medical and allied health professions.”
Murder is “The act of ending the life of a living organism, the act of which is to be classified as morally wrong.”

1. Abortion is Healthcare:

As Ben Shapiro is amp to say “facts don't care about your feelings.” He's even got a rap mocking Karens whose feelings are hurt by facts [1].

According to the actual experts on this topic, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), “Facts Are Important: Abortion Is Healthcare” [2]. The ACOG goes on to specify that the reason women may opt for an abortion as medical treatment

“include, but are not limited to, contraceptive failure, barriers to contraceptive use and access, rape, incest, intimate partner violence, fetal anomalies, illness during pregnancy, and exposure to teratogenic medications.
Pregnancy complications, including placental abruption, bleeding from placenta previa, preeclampsia or eclampsia, and cardiac or renal conditions, may be so severe that abortion is the only measure to preserve a woman’s health or save her life.”

Further, according to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Guttmacher Institute, denied access to abortions kills ~50,000 women per year.

Some crazed cultists might break down crying if you decide to get a tumor removed, but it's an inarguable fact that such remains healthcare, regardless of the hurt feelings of Karens.

2. Abortion is not Murder:

The definition gives two interesting clauses, the first being that destroying any life is murder, but there was an addendum of morality...

Regarding if any killing is murder, it leads to absurdity of murdering salads [3]. Under this, an abortion is the most anti-murder thing someone can do, as it saves countless salads (and other living organisms).

Further, since “that little fetus will never get the chance to experience the physical world” it is agreed that no suffering has been inflicted, nor any loss experienced.

Further, “when these babies die, they will go to heaven” which makes it the best possible thing a woman can do for the unborn life; guaranteeing them entrance to heaven, whereas if born they most likely won't get into heaven [4].

Sources:

Round 2

Tickbeat

01.28.2024 09:39PM

Pro

First of all, I obviously do not consider removing a tumor of any kind to be an abortion. A tumor is not a baby.

Now onto your points:

Yes, when a baby dies, they go to heaven. And when a human dies, (provided they are saved), they will also go to heaven. Going by the Christian worldview, this seems pretty good. Except for the fact that if you go by the Christian worldview, you will also have to accept that murder is wrong, and God speaks against it very clearly. God did give us permission to use animals for food and clothing, among other uses, after Noah's flood. But for humans, it is wrong. And especially when we know that God has given the fetus a soul, this makes it wrong to kill it. So when you refuted my point using the Christian worldview, you only refuted half of it. If you included the full part, you would know that the baby going to heaven when they die is irrelevant to whether or not it is wrong to murder. The Bible is very clear about this.

And, if the baby is going to have some kind of illness when they are born, this is still not an excuse to murder it. When people have disabilities, we don't just throw them out of society, we adapt to them. We build ramps, special parking spaces, days off of work, prosthetics, etc. A disabled person should still be able to live their life without getting excluded by society, and that goes for a disabled baby as well.

And, if you're going to murder a baby because it might medically help the mother, and use that as a reason to consider it healthcare, consider the fact that what has just been done is the exact opposite of healthcare, for the baby. Health care's goal is to, well, care for your health. And to care for your health is to make sure you don't die. Here, someone is dying: the baby. Death is not health care, now is it?

Sometimes, people can die for other people, such as a heart transplant. But there's a big difference: the person who gave their heart to the other person is doing it voluntarily. They have made the decision to give their heart to another person, and thus sacrificing their own life. But imagine if some kind of government or medical agency walked up to you and informed you that you would have to give another person a heart transplant against your will. You would have to die against your will, so you can give somebody else your heart. The baby is dying against their will.

Barney

01.29.2024 12:15AM

Con

1. Abortion is Healthcare:

Extend.

"Death is not health care, now is it?"

Remember, Healthcare is “The prevention, treatment, and management of illness and the preservation of mental and physical well-being through the services offered by the medical and allied health professions.”

If remaining pregnant would so much as harm ones mental health, ending that pregnancy is by definition healthcare. To say otherwise would be akin to saying that eating a salad isn't healthy because we must consider the health of the salad. Heck, a kidney transplant harms the donor, so do we declare that as not healthcare? This isn't even getting into the number of pregnancies that would simply kill the mother.

"The baby is dying against their will."

Prove it.

"imagine if some kind of government or medical agency walked up to you and informed you that you would have to..."

Which is essentially what happens to women. Some deranged cult members took over their governments and forces them to serve as mobile life support systems against their will. When they are willing, fine, but they are not always willing. You know that no means no right?

"if the baby is going to have some kind of illness when they are born..."

Ironically my first draft of my previous argument included a section about Sparta...

The fact is the woman knows said child will suffer, which may change the equations for her decision. Plus, the world is not kind to disabled people; just consider forced-birth cultists who want to punish single mothers for not getting abortions. As a reminder, said cultists go so far as to declare that rapists are innocent so long as they cause a pregnancy [1].

2. Abortion is not Murder:

Extend.

"Christian worldview, you will also have to accept that murder is wrong"

I do not accept that abortion is murder, nor does the bible.

Further, the vast majority of abortions are performed by God, making them good by default.

Plus as we already agreed, abortions send souls to heaven rather than hell, which seems like an obvious moral good instead of a moral wrong. It even seems like not getting an abortion would be the real crime, given that you are almost certainly condemning that soul to hell.

Sources:

https://www.wired.com/2012/08/house-committee-science/

Round 3

Tickbeat

01.29.2024 01:37AM

Pro

"To say otherwise would be akin to saying that eating a salad isn't healthy because we must consider the health of the salad."

I'm not the one comparing a literal human being to a salad. I don't know how you think those two things are the same. A fetus is alive, and is a human being. A salad was never alive to begin with, and is not a human being. And before you say, "the salad was alive because they were once plants," God allowed people to eat plants even before the fall of sin, because plants are not sentient, and do not have a soul. And, there is no problem with a guy who volunteers to transplant his kidney, not someone forcing them to transplant their kidney.

"Prove it."

Prove it? You want me to prove that an abortion is not a baby choosing to kill itself, but rather the mother choosing to kill their baby? Either you haven't elaborated, or you've gone out of your mind.

"The fact is the woman knows said child will suffer, which may change the equations for her decision."

Yeah, there is suffering in this world. But let me ask you a question: if you had the opportunity to press a button that would cease your prior conception, and remove all traces of your existence upon all of the universe and beyond, would you do it? You would never be conscious again, and nobody would even know, because their prior knowledge of you has been undone. Yes, there is suffering in the world, but the good in the world is too much for a person to bring themselves to cause themselves to cease to exist. Their life is too precious to do that. And if a person were to jump at such an opportunity, and they desire it, then they need to call a suicide hotline.

"I do not accept that abortion is murder, nor does the Bible."

Psalm 139:13 - 16

"For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them."

This verse teaches that life begins at conception.

Exodus 20:13

"You shall not murder."

So, life begins at conception, and you shall not murder. Murder first requires there to be a life to end, obviously. And if there is life even at conception, then it is therefore possible to end it, which is murder, and that is wrong.

So, the Bible absolutely says that abortion is wrong. Though I don't know if the word abortion even existed when the Bible was being originally translated into English, so you're probably not going to find some quote that literally says "do not commit abortion," but even if the word abortion did exist, a fetus is just as human as any other human, so it's still just as wrong to end their life, and the Bible doesn't need to specify by differentiating a baby from an adult, because they both have souls, and were made in the image of God.

"It even seems like not getting an abortion would be the real crime, given that you are almost certainly condemning that soul to hell."

Why is it most certain? Just merely existing does not mean you are likely going to hell, even if there is a high percentage of atheists out there. At an early age, the way YOU teach your child is key. Children's mannerisms, beliefs, values, and logic are formed and taught to them by their parents at an early age. This is why if people see a five year old at a restaurant kicking and screaming until they get their iPad, they never blame the child, they blame the parents for bad parenting. If you are a Christian, you are to teach your children the Bible and its teachings, and also how to defend the faith, so they can move into adulthood a Christian even against other people's judgement and objections. If you are a Christian, and intend to teach your child the Bible and all, then the mere fact that they exist does not make it likely that they are going to hell, because you are going to teach them exactly how to NOT go to hell.

Barney

01.29.2024 07:59AM

Con

1. Abortion is Healthcare:

Extend.

"A salad was never alive to begin with"

Fruits and vegetables are living organisms [1]. Your definition called for the death of organisms to be murder. If you wish to not consume living things, you're basically limited to eating rocks.

Obviously, 'a salad' is to simplify a point, rather than counting the average number of organisms which must die to produce a meal.

"and is not a human being."

Morally there is nothing special about having certain DNA patterns. Some mice have human DNA, and we do not afford them the right to vote [2]; rather we assign rights based on presumed intellectual development.

"The baby is dying against their will."

The fetus has no will with which to oppose an abortion. Further, they do not feel pain with 98.7% of abortions occurring well before the physical development is even in place for the possibility of it [3, 4].

"if you had the opportunity to press a button that would cease your prior conception"

Sure. However, an abortion apparently doesn't erase an existence, rather it sends a soul to heaven (otherwise they will most likely go to hell).

2. Abortion is not Murder:

Extend.

The Bible

God literally performs abortions in Numbers 5:11-31 [5]. That is the only direct mention of abortion in the bible, which is most clearly favorable to it.

Plus, if we assume God is true, then all miscarriages are abortions in his divine plan.

Psalm can say anything it likes about life, and it will not make life sacred. In 2 Kings God literally murdered (or gravely injured) 42 children for the terrible crime of calling Elisha bald.

Exodus is circular reasoning. Defining something as murder because you define it as murder, leaves no meaning to the word murder.

Hell

There are roughly 4000 religions in the world. We can subdivide them into 8 major categories. Already any child has only a 12.5% chance of being in the right religion to not go to hell; and then there's the high probability that they won't be the best of the best within said religion.

But for arguments sake, lets assume you're correct about Christianity being the right one. Christians make up an impressive 31% of the world [6], which means 69% of the world should get abortions for the wellbeing of their offspring.

Sources:

Round 4

Tickbeat

01.30.2024 04:35PM

Pro

"Fruits and vegetables are living organisms."

Did you even read what I said? I specifically said that God has given us permission to eat plants even before the fall of sin. There is absolutely nothing wrong with eating plants, not to any level whatsoever. And I specifically called out you saying "plants are living organisms" before you even said it, so the fact that you said it anyway is interesting.

"Your definition called for the death of living organisms to be murder."

If you read the whole definition, you would know that that was only the first part. The second part clearly states: "the act of which is to be classified as morally wrong." It is not morally wrong to eat plants. People were allowed to eat plants even before the fall of sin. I don't know if you're even going to read the second half of my arguments.

"Morally, there is nothing special about having certain DNA patterns."

Yeah, except humans have souls, and were made in the image of God, and mice do not and were not. And, while yes, things are based on intellectual capacity, some of the lowest IQ people in history could also have been classified in that regard, which would not lead to a very good outcome. A human fetus has a soul and was made in the image of God, so it is wrong to murder them.

"Rather it sends another soul to heaven (otherwise they will most likely go to hell)"

I told you, it's your job to teach your child how to not go to hell, and how to serve God, and repent when you don't. You're assuming that any baby that is born is automatically likely going to hell. If YOU are a Christian, then YOU are going to teach YOUR child the Bible, God, the ten commandments, etc. It is not valid to simply assume that they're going to hell just because they had the opportunity to be in this world. Because, you, along with your spouse, are the ones who are guiding said baby through life, and therefore are the ones who teach them how to not go to hell.

"God literally performs abortions in Numbers 5:11-31"

We belong to God. God owns our souls and our beings. We did not do that. We have no right to take somebody's life. But God does, because he created you. I know you might not accept that, but it's true.

"Exodus is circular reasoning. Defining something as murder because you define it as murder, leaves no meaning to the word murder."

Can you elaborate on that?

"Already any child has only a 12.5% chance of being in the right religion to not go to hell."

Not if you're teaching them and you're a Christian.

I wanted to make sure that we stayed on topic and not get caught up in the details of our back and forth responses, so I'm adding this last end card to close my statement by saying this: even a human fetus has a soul, and even a human fetus was made in the image of God. They are a sacred life. The question is, what are you going to do with that precious life? What are you going to do with that real human being? And what would you do if you had to face them again? Abortion is murder, and should not be done. I am human. You are human. We are all, human. Amen.

Barney

02.02.2024 03:19AM

Con

1. Abortion is Healthcare:

No standing argument remains that abortion is not healthcare, regardless of if it is or is not moral.

"A salad was never alive to begin with"

They remain alive, and we kill them for our benefit without it being morally bad. This sets a precedent.

A fetus is no more alive than a salad, and suffers nothing for ceasing to be.

"humans have souls, and were made in the image of God, and mice do not and were not."

What makes you assume that? Scholarly research on this matter reveals the opposite [1].

Additionally, you're arguing that lesser organisms don't have souls so are ok to kill, even when they have human DNA.

A mouse can have human DNA, humans can have the pig hearts [2], etc. Religiously, this further backs up that we all share the imago dei.

2. Abortion is not Murder:

Killing is only murder when it is morally wrong, and abortion has been shown to be a clear moral good (at least more often than not).

"You're assuming that any baby that is born is automatically likely going to hell."

By default yes!

The odds of two random people being Christian are only 9.6%, and that's no guarantee of them both sticking around to raise the kid properly. But for the sake of argument, we'll liberally say Christians only date other Christians, and never break up, so 31% chance of the Christian home. However, only 35% of people think raising their children to have the same religion as them is important; the highest group is 70% [3], so we'll assume all Christians are white evangelical protestants.

So the odds of any random child being born into the right family to maybe not go to hell, are only 21.7%. Further, Christianity is on the decline [4], so every year going forward it's more likely for that child to not stay religious and therefore go to hell.

The Bible

I honestly don't understand why you are opposed to people emulating God by following his example in doing good works... However, there is an easy compromise... Prayer before and/or during abortions, so that the abortion only occurs if God wills it (as he has so many previously); making abortions be akin to religiously sanctioned exorcisms.

Better yet, this would align closely with those performed by God at the temple; in which God had the women drink a potion of "bitter water" and he would then abort any fetus conceived out of wedlock.

Exodus (circular reasoning)

You've pointed out that Exodus says "You shall not murder," and used it to conclude that abortions must therefore be murder. However, our standard for murder requires it to first be morally wrong; the conclusion that's murder so therefore is morally wrong, is a loop without a beginning, one which could be claimed of literally any action.

Conclusions:

Abortion is Healthcare

All the experts from ACOG, WHO, and the Guttmacher Institute agree that abortion is healthcare, which treats the various illnesses cited earlier. This has not been contested.

Abortion is not Murder

Abortion saves countless lives (non-human, but still lives), and it is greatly beneficial to human fetuses without inflicting any burden upon them. This makes it clearly not morally wrong, therefore not murder.

Sources:

Round 5

Tickbeat

02.03.2024 06:17PM

Pro

"A fetus is no more alive than a salad."

False. Not only does a fetus have a soul, but it is going to actively grow into a human being. What's a salad going to do? And, a salad does NOT remain to be alive, it is a freaking salad. Sure, maybe they were a living organism when they were in the ground, but now they are not alive. And again, we are morally allowed to eat them, AND we are morally allowed to eat animals, as God gave us permission to eat animals after Noah's flood. That's why we can eat animals.

"Even when they have human DNA."

A human soul is always going to remain the same human soul, no matter what you do to its body. It is still the same person. It doesn't matter if they have a pig heart or not.

"The odds of two random people being Christian..."

What I am saying is that this argument is like saying that since the majority of the world claims to not like pineapple pizza, that the odds of you liking pineapple pizza are low.

If you are a Christian, then the statistics on how many Christians there are in the world is irrelevant, because you yourself are a Christian.

This therefore means that when you raise your child, the statistics on how many atheists there are in the world are irrelevant, because you yourself are a Christian, and will teach your child the Bible and all about God.

"So that the abortion only occurs if God wills it."

God still gave you free will, and the ability to choose whether your want to abort your child or not. If your child dies, it's because you made the choice to abort it.

"However, our standard for murder requires it to first be morally wrong; the conclusion that's murder so therefore is morally wrong, is a loop without a beginning."

You know what standard we have for deciding if something is morally wrong? The ten commandments. These are clearly the things that God has told us to do. Defining whether or not abortion is wrong is not to first define if it is wrong, it is to first define what is human. If we know that a fetus is human, then we can know it is morally wrong, because when you murder it, it is the ending of a human life with a human soul. It's not circular reasoning.

"Abortion saves countless lives."

It ends just as many lives.

Barney

02.04.2024 06:21AM

Con

#10

1. Abortion is Healthcare:

All that's left here is theological discussions, which have no baring on if abortion is or is not healthcare.

"Not only does a fetus have a soul, but it is going to actively grow into a human being."

Biblically I've already shown that all organisms have souls, and are made in the image of God.

Hopefully denying that they're already human was a slip of the tongue; but besides that, humans suck, so it's a bad thing to grow into one.

"What's a salad going to do?"

As was explained earlier: "Obviously, 'a salad' is to simplify a point, rather than counting the average number of organisms which must die to produce a meal."

As for dietary declarations from the bible, these become hypocritical given that Christians pick and choose which they shall obey. For example, eating animals without first ensuring that said animal chewed the cud and has a split hoof completely divided (requirement from Leviticus 11). From this we can easily conclude that most Christians fail at obeying God's morals, and are therefore doomed to hell.

2. Abortion is not Murder:

More theology. That said, if pro has failed to prove the previous point, this need not even be read.

"If you are a Christian..."

Most of the world is not, making abortion best for at least 78.3% of people.

"...teach your child the Bible and all about God."

Are you absolutely 100% certain you'll be successful? Any failing, even if they so much as break God's laws by eating Hawaiian pizza (apologies to any who suffered that atrocity) they will spend a literal eternity in hell. If you're only 99% sure (you could die in the first twenty years of their life), that 1% is an infinity of suffering.

"If your child dies, it's because you made the choice to abort it."

Under current methods yes, but as above it is a clear moral good.

However, if praying for God's intervention if he wills it, then as described in the bible it is God performing the abortion as he did at the temple.

Circular Reasoning

Falling back to the ten commandments declaring "You shall not murder" as proof abortion is murder, misses that abortion has never been shown to be murder to then be violation of that rule. Intellectually and biblically it remains an equal crime to eating an actual salad, both are killing organisms that suffer nothing for it; which has not been shown to be the crime of murder.

An example of murder would be slicing up a pineapple to put onto pizza. There is a morally wrong intent to the action, so that killing can be defined as murder per the provided definitions in this debate. Whereas an abortion is a clear moral good of sending a human soul straight to heaven, so is clearly not murder.

Conclusions:

Only one point in here was challenged, but extend the rest.

"It ends just as many lives."

In the USA we average killing one animal every two days for food. That's 182 per year, and 14,014 over the course of 77 years (our life expectancy). This is not counting veggies, nor what organisms those animals killed for consumption. So the logic of all things being equal does not stand up to scrutiny.

Best.Korea

02.05.2024 03:13PM

#23

-->

@Tickbeat

If you plan to debate abortion in the future, make sure to create topics which are easier to defend, such as:

"In most cases, abortion is morally wrong"

While defining abortion to limit it to intentional termination of human pregnancy.

You really dont want to be forced to account for human miscarriages or animal abortions.

You also dont want to defend cases where abortion is more morally justified, such as rape cases or pregnancies which would result in death anyway.

You want to argue what happens in most cases, which is the easier to defend than arguing all cases.

You can try to argue all cases, but thats very difficult to defend, as there are cases where both mother and fetus die unless abortion is performed.

Best.Korea

02.05.2024 01:17PM

#22

-->

@Barney

This debate definitely shouldnt have gone into debating Bible,

And Pro definitely shouldnt have claimed that all unborns go to heaven.

Its a famous question in Christianity, to which some Christians give entirelly different answer.

In Christianity, there are many theories which actually deny that unborns go to heaven.

One such theory is about future crimes and actions person would do under certain circumstances.

The theory is strongly implied in the Bible, as Jesus said that Sodom will have it easier at judgment day, not because of what it actually did, but because it would have repented if it was given a sign.

This goes more about God knowing what unborn would do in life if it was allowed to live even if unborn never gets to live.

Barney

02.05.2024 06:46AM

#21

-->

@Tickbeat

Noted. If we debate again I shall strive to argue solely my opinions on whatever topic.

For abortion, my true opinions may be found at:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1024-should-abortion-be-made-illegal

Tickbeat

02.05.2024 05:31AM

#20

-->

@Barney

I would prefer that you would not deceptively argue your way into winning a debate if you know that some of the things that you say are wrong...

whiteflame

02.05.2024 04:23AM

#19

-->

@Barney

So true. Also, all The Good Place references are very much appreciated. Love that show.

Barney

02.05.2024 04:19AM

#18

-->

@Best.Korea

Thank you for voting,

A fun thing about debates which get biblical, is how ripe for cherry-picking the bible is.

Barney

02.05.2024 04:17AM

#17

-->

@Savant

Thank you for voting,

And yes, I saw no reason to argue the soul point. In that it's like the human DNA point in so many of these, which IMO does not make a person.
Some points I allow without contest, to instead focus my efforts on areas which I find more interesting. As a tactic, this also shifts the audiences attention to be less on such a point.

Barney

02.05.2024 04:08AM

#16

-->

@whiteflame

Thank you for voting,

Regarding pizza, I lied about it for the sake of comedy. Glad someone caught the joke.

What I find hilarious about people hating on Hawaiian pizza, is they're against it being in a mass pizza order, and then decide they each want just one little slice of it... You know, from the lone pizza for those who admit to liking Hawaiian; thereby preventing those people from having any.

Barney

02.04.2024 11:42PM

#15

-->

@Tickbeat

I went to a Catholic university, so I know the bible far better than most Christians. The trick is that in any debate, I need not present it according to tradition; and I can cherry-pick. As an example, I once proved that the bible teaches that Jesus is not God; I would even disagree with that conclusion, but my biblical evidence was not sufficiently countered.

As for forgiveness, it should have stated eating Hawaiian pizza without then repenting (either because you don't know that it's a sin which must be repented, or because you die first). Granted, I wholly disagree with the notion of anyone going to hell for drinking almond milk (another Good Place reference) or whatever. What I argue inside any debate, can broadly differ from my actual opinions.

My actual opinion, which I formed at a damned young age while in prayer, is that almost everyone goes through a type of cleansing purgatory. Even knowing Jesus' name isn't required, even while following his moral lessons is extremely useful.

Tickbeat

02.04.2024 06:54PM

#14

-->

@Barney

Ok, I just need to ask you if you have ever even read the Bible. I'll try to stay calm but this one is just...

You concluded in one of your points that all Christians have failed to obey God's law.

But

That's literally THE WHOLE POINT

The Bible says there is none good but God
That's why Jesus died and took the punishment for the sin of the world

Do you not even understand the basic premise of Christianity? Yeah, not a single Christian has successfully obeyed all of God's laws. That's a fact. And you acted like I was going to refute it, or that you were surprised, or that it was against what the Bible says. Or maybe I misinterpreted what you were implying when you said that, but either way, that's the whole point.

Barney

02.04.2024 06:36PM

#13

-->

@Tickbeat

Some advice...

Make future resolutions single clause. In this case, either the murder or the healthcare.

Also you can lower your Burden of Proof with a less strong statement, such as "abortion ought to be regarded as murder."

Narrowing the scope can pre-refute many opposing arguments for being off topic. Like if you want to center the debate on the bible, you can make the resolution "Biblically, abortion is murder."

As for healthcare, the Hippocratic Oath is your best bet to argue that. There was a great episode of The Good Place where they explored that far into the Trolly Problem.

There's some more general advice at:
https://tiny.cc/DebateArt

Best.Korea

02.04.2024 01:24PM

#12

"Pro conceded that non-Christians go to hell and that there are much more non-Christians in the world than non-Christians, and that due to that, baby will likely go to hell if not aborted and surely go to heaven if aborted."

Small correction here.

I meant to say "there are much more non-Christians in the world than Christians".

Best.Korea

02.03.2024 10:56PM

#11

"I know that when these babies die, they will go to heaven"

I mean, this sentence alone destroys Pro position, and it came from Pro.

There were too many unnecessary claims being made in this debate which made this unwinnable for Pro.

It was unnecessary to add "abortion is not healthcare" to the topic.

After reading the debate so far, I get the clear feeling that abortion is not "morally wrong" in many cases, but I also get the feeling that abortion is morally good and even morally obligatory in most cases.

There is nothing which makes me think its better for baby to go to hell than heaven,

And the point of no suffering being experienced by the unborn didnt get any challenge either.

Barney

02.02.2024 12:51AM

#10

-->

@Tickbeat

Oh my mind is long gone 🤯

Intelligence_06

01.31.2024 01:49AM

This is one of the best owns I have seen so far against anti-abortion initiatives. Bravo Barney!

Tickbeat

01.30.2024 08:15PM

-->

@Barney

Well that explains a lot. I've never heard of someone intentionally planting mistakes in their arguments before. Previously I just thought you had gone out of your mind, but I'm used to having people argue against my points no matter how logical they are (mainly in theism vs atheism debates), so I wasn't sure.

Barney

01.30.2024 05:19PM

-->

@Tickbeat

Before I post my round, I would like to say that you are going to be a force to be reckoned with. Sure some polishing is needed, but it's rare for someone to catch the mistakes I plant (if you'll pardon the pun) in my arguments.

Benjamin

01.28.2024 07:56PM

-->

@Tickbeat

You came to this site and immidiately fell into a boss fight. I wish you good luck.

Best.Korea

01.28.2024 05:03PM

-->

@Tickbeat

You are supposed to put definitions in description or in round one.

Comments cant really be considered part of debate, unless agreed to by both debaters.

Barney

01.28.2024 04:58AM

-->

@Tickbeat

Welcome, and good luck.

My planned arguments are straight forward and simple. Abortion is health care; regardless of if it is also murder (not that I think it is).

YouFound_Lxam

01.28.2024 04:39AM

-->

@Tickbeat

I would be careful with those definitions, because technically, a miscarriage is a natural abortion, and that isn't morally wrong, it's a natural possibility.

Tickbeat

01.28.2024 03:48AM

-->

@Savant

Healthcare -
Noun
The prevention, treatment, and management of illness and the preservation of mental and physical well-being through the services offered by the medical and allied health professions.

Murder -
Verb
The act of ending the life of a living organism, the act of which is to be classified as morally wrong.

I specified "morally wrong" because that differentiates it from killing, which is to end the life of a living organism, but is not to be classified as morally wrong.

Savant

01.28.2024 03:23AM

-->

@Tickbeat

I would recommend defining healthcare and murder in the description to prevent someone from making a semantic kritik based on legal definitions.

Savant

02.05.2024 04:01AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

Con makes a case for abortion being healthcare which is not directly negated by Pro. I can buy that abortion is healthcare for the mother while also believing it is not healthcare for the fetus. Pro responds to some of these points but does not give an alternate definition of healthcare, so as long as abortion improves well-being for the mother (regardless of whatever else it does), Con's argument succeeds on this front.

Both sides seem to agree on biblical morality. Pro argues that fetuses have souls, which goes largely conceded. Pro could have done better here by arguing the implications of "Thou shalt not murder," but on its own this does not establish that abortion is murder, since it does not establish all killings of human souls to be immoral. Con argues that sending babies to heaven is good, which Pro at least somewhat agrees with. So this point goes to Con as well, in the absence of a stronger framework from Pro.

In short, Con's framing and definitions go mostly unchallenged by Pro, which makes it near impossible for Pro to affirm the resolution.

whiteflame

02.05.2024 02:55AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

So tempted to give this debate to Pro because Con blasphemed against pineapple on pizza... truly, the travesty is dismissing the miracle that is Hawaiian pizza. Unfortunately, the topic of this debate is not a scathing rebuke of Con's anti-taste tendencies, so I must sally forth into the morass that is abortion.

On that front... yeah, this isn't much of a contest.

Pro gets lost in an argument about why abortion is immoral, and that's a problem for reasons Con mentions several times. First and foremost, that does not establish that abortion is not healthcare. Pro's only argument to this effect is that it ends the life of the unborn and therefore is not care for them. As Con points out, that doesn't mean no health care is occurring or that the mother isn't receiving said care. You can argue that it's immortal for the mother to receive said care at the cost of the unborn, but that argument could not affirm the resolution, which is not an on balance statement - it's an absolute.

Similarly, while Pro does establish multiple times that the Bible is anti-murder and, at least to some degree, anti-abortion as a result, it's not sufficient to sell his argument that abortion is murder, particularly as Con makes the argument that what is moral is what's best for the majority of parties involved. Rather than arguing that there's a great moral value to more of the unborn living out their days post-birth, Pro makes the perplexing choice of saying that all of the unborn go to heaven and then just... saying murder is bad anyway. There's a guarantee of heaven for every abortion. There is a far lesser likelihood of heaven for everyone else. Pro had to argue that there's some good that is being lost that eclipses the gain of certainty regarding heaven. Pro doesn't do that. Again, this is an absolute: even if I buy that there's a decent chance that abortion should be defined as murder, Con makes a significant case against that, so at the very least there's uncertainty in Pro's assertion.

Ergo, despite his truly deplorable conduct and terrible sense of taste, I vote Con.

Best.Korea

02.04.2024 01:13PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

Good debate.

Pro is a good debater, but he made mistakes which simply made it difficult for him to win this.

Pro opens up with a classical argument of unborn being denied of life and experience.

Con counters that by saying that abortion means no loss and no suffering experienced.

Pro counters that suffering in the world is outweighed by desire to live, and that life is precious to people.

Con counters by saying that abortion doesnt erase existence but sends unborn to heaven.

Pro states that unborn is human, and implies it is equal to a born baby.

Con opens up with facts about abortion indeed being a healthcare for the woman.

Pro counters by saying its not healthcare for the baby, but the death for the baby.

Con counters by saying that there are pregnancies where woman would die, so abortion is obviously healthcare for the woman in those cases.

Con points out that something doesnt stop being healthcare just because it harms someone else.

Pro claims that we wouldnt kill people with disabilities, so we shouldnt kill unborn either.

Con counters by saying that world is not kind to disabled people, and abortion would prevent suffering.

Pro claims that unborn is killed against its will.

Con asks pro to prove his claim about unborns being killed against their will.

Con explains that unborn has no will, and therefore, has no will which could oppose to abortion.

Con claims that women would be forced to give birth against their will.

Now, this debate was spinned a lot around one single claim:

"I know that when these babies die, they will go to heaven"

This claim was completely unneccessary, as not only it doesnt help Pro's case, but is an argument against his position.

Con built position that its better for baby to go to heaven than to be born and have good chance of going to hell.

Pro tried to counter by saying God banned murder, thus banned abortions.

Pro provided verses which explain that life begins at conception.

Con provided challenge for this claim, apparently God himself doing abortions.

Con provided additional challenge, apparently that definition of murder in the Bible is circular.

Pro counters by saying that God has right to commit murder, where we dont.

Con counters this further by saying that definition of murder in the Bible has nothing to do with definition of murder in this debate.

Pro says that Ten Commandments determine whats morally wrong.

Con counters that abortion was never shown to be murder.

Pro said that people should be Christians so that baby doesnt go to hell.

But this claim doesnt make me think people will actually be Christians if they dont abort, or that baby will certainly go to heaven if being born.

Con points out again that great majority of people arent Christians, and even Christians cant be 100% successful in raising children properly.

Pro conceded that non-Christians go to hell and that there are much more non-Christians in the world than non-Christians, and that due to that, baby will likely go to hell if not aborted and surely go to heaven if aborted.

I get the clear feeling that abortion is not "morally wrong" in many cases where parents arent Christian,

but I also get the feeling that abortion is morally good in those cases.

There is nothing which makes me think its better for baby to go to hell than heaven,

And the point of no suffering being experienced by the unborn didnt get any challenge either.

I end with conclusion that abortion is healthcare for the woman in some cases where woman will die

And in all cases most beneficial for the unborn.

I can see the point of plants and animals with human DNA being killed not being treated as murder, and therefore challenging the claim of what Bible actually considers murder and what not.

The last round argument of animals being eaten and suffering should have come sooner, but regardless, its a win for Con.

Sources were present on both sides, even tho Con presented much more, where Pro only presented Bible verse.

Conduct was good on both sides.

As for being easy to read, it was easy enough to read both sides of the debate.