Sedo - Buy and Sell Domain Names and Websites project info: debate.com Statistics for project debate.com etracker® web controlling instead of log file analysis
The Instigator
wwb371
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Spiral
Pro (for)
Winning
60 Points

the topic of this debate is abortion and i believe that this is wrong because ur killing humans okay

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Started: 5/14/2008 Category: News
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 321 times Debate No: 4036
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (29)
Votes (22)

 

wwb371

Con

my opening argument is that abortion should be illegal b/c that is basically kilng a human being okay son so see me
Spiral

Pro

Thanks for the challenge.

"my opening argument is that abortion should be illegal b/c that is basically kilng a human being okay son so see me"

First of all, my opponent must provide backing on what a human being actually is.

According to the Marriam-Webster's dictionary, a human is:

: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens: man; broadly : hominid
— hu·man·like Listen to the pronunciation of humanlike \-mən-ˌlîk\ adjective

And it defines a fetus as:

: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth

And the definition of develop we can look at:

1 a: to go through a process of natural growth, differentiation, or evolution by successive changes <a blossom develops from a bud> b: to acquire secondary sex characteristics
_____________________________________________________
Now to argue my opponent's case.

My opponent has made an ethical argument, clear and simple. His only argument against abortion is that it is, quote, "...basically kilng a human being okay..." Ethical issues are, in the United States, brought up in court. Now my opponent has argued that abortion should be illegal, so we will discuss law in this argument. When the government passes laws that someone thinks infringes their rights, they may sue. The questions, though, that we must ask are as follows:

1. What are my basic rights?
2. By virtue of what do I have these?
3. What are the limits of these rights?
4. When may the government interfere, restrict my liberty?

We can take the Griswald vs. Connecticut Supreme Court case into consideration here. From 1879, CT had a law that made it a crime (punishable by fine or prison) to use, distribute, or advise the use of contraception. Many other states had similar laws. Estelle Griswald opened first family planning clinic in CT, advising contraceptive use, and distributing it. She was arrested. She sued on the grounds that the law was violation of the U.S. Constitution.

How was it a violation?

The court ruled, 7 to 2, that it was a violation of marital privacy. This isn't in the constitution, you say, this right to privacy. What one must realise, and what will help in my point against my opponent's abortion claim, is that there are enumerated rights and prenumbral rights. Enumerated are the ones that are explicitly mentioned in the constitution, and prenumbral are rights that implied. So, the court was claiming that marital privacy is a penumbral constitutional right implied in the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 19th amendments.
Now lets go to how Griswald could even have rights in the first place.

To have full American rights, you must first be an American citizen. To be an American citizen, you must be born in America. Griswald was an American citizen, therefore all of her rights are present, enumberated and prenumbral.

Someone who is not born in America (as we defined above, a fetus is unborn) does not possess American rights. To make something illegal in the United States, it must violate the law:

Illegal

: not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit; also : not sanctioned by official rules (as of a game)
Therefore, taking a fetus' life is not technically illegal, because a fetus is not a legal U.S. citizen and therefore has no U.S. rights. A fetus, actually, is technically not a citizen of any country and has no rights at all.

A few more things my opponent should consider before his rebuttal:

1. What about a spontaneous abortion? Should we arrest women who have miscarriages? Is that manslaughter?
2. What about therapeutic abortion? Should we arrest women who have abortions preformed so they will not die during labor, have massive physical damage, or psychological damage?
3. Should we not preform abortions on a fetus that is grotesquely abnormal?
Debate Round No. 1
wwb371

Con

wwb371 forfeited this round.
Spiral

Pro

*Whistles aimlessly* Still no argument from Con. I'm guessing the rest will be forfeits as well. With nothing to rebut my arguments still stand.
Debate Round No. 2
wwb371

Con

wwb371 forfeited this round.
Spiral

Pro

Hmm. Another forfeit, oh well.

The Bat
Lewis Carroll

Twinkle, twinkle, little bat
How I wonder what you're at!
Up above the world you fly
Like a tea-tray in the sky.
Debate Round No. 3
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 20 records.
Posted by HellKat 6 months ago
HellKat
Somebody needs to give this kid some spelling and grammar lessons. Badly.
Posted by Spiral 6 months ago
Spiral
I'm guessing, Bitz, that our mutual debate won't be the most engaging. Nice comment by the way :D
Posted by Bitz 6 months ago
Bitz
"who cares if tha votin iz unstable thin if i have more votes thin u have to give me a bj thin if i lose thin i have to eat u out and giv u anal sex"

Wwb371, Quoted from your profile: "Age: 15 Years "

Federal laws (legislation that applies to all Australian citizens)

It is an offence for an Australian citizen, resident or body corporate[1] while outside of Australia to have sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 16 [2] or to induce a child under the age of 16 to have sexual intercourse[3] , or be somehow involved in a similar sexual act[4].

Sorry Wwb371, looks like your out of luck.

[1] Crimes Act 1914 - {s50AD} http://www.austlii.edu.au...
[2] Crimes Act 1914 - {s50BA} http://www.austlii.edu.au...
[3] Crimes Act 1914 - {s50BB}
[4] Crimes Act 1914 - {s50BC}&{s50BD}http://www.austlii.edu.au...
Posted by Vi_Veri 6 months ago
Vi_Veri
wwb371, you perverted prick, you ever heard of something called being reported?
Posted by wwb371 6 months ago
wwb371
ok so do you agree to the terms of tha bet
Posted by Spiral 6 months ago
Spiral
Well at least we all know that your maturity level is in the negative values.
Posted by wwb371 6 months ago
wwb371
who cares if tha votin iz unstable thin if i have more votes thin u have to give me a bj thin if i lose thin i have to eat u out and giv u anal sex
Posted by Spiral 6 months ago
Spiral
1. Read below as to why "having more votes" will not be stable. 2. "give me sumthin" tells me nothing about what you consider an appropriate bet.
Posted by wwb371 6 months ago
wwb371
if i have more votes than u thin u have 2 give me sumthin n if i lose thin i have 2 give u sumthin
Posted by Spiral 6 months ago
Spiral
Seeing as how there is no objective measure for a win/loss/tie, staking a bet seems futile, especially seeing as how you have failed to mention what you would consider appropriate as a bet.
Loading voting charts...

Show people this debate by sending them this public link: