Instigator / Con
4
1641
rating
63
debates
65.08%
won
Topic
#1041

Does The Bible Outlaw Abortion?

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

sigmaphil
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
7
1557
rating
7
debates
71.43%
won
Description

I will be waiving the first round because my opponent is making the positive claim. They will waive the last round.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

The main point of contention is whether the Bible considers a fetus alive. Both sides appear to accept the validity of the majority of pros arguments, specifically that murder and the killing of innocents is outlawed; and it’s really whether the Bible treats the fetus this way that is important to the debate.

The main arguments pro makes to support this side is a variety of verses related to talking about being in the womb. This seems a fairly intuitive argument.

Con didn’t do a great job of refuting this. While I could notionally buy the idea that the bible is talking figuratively, con doesn’t really justify this too well; it does enough to muddy the waters, but not to overturn pros R1.

Con does much better, with a much more specific example where the law is used to show death of a child in the womb is treated as destruction of property in terms of punishment; if this is true it would basically bypass pros entire argument. So I would weight it strongly.

My issue with it, is that it appears to require the assumption the verse is talking about the mother solely : pro has this same issue and challenges the interpretation too.

Following on from this, pro mostly rejects the more spiritual and poetic interpretation of life in the womb, as con muddied the water, rather than refuted by his position pros response is okay - but I would have preferred a more direct rebuttal of cons contention in these points as opposed to more of a reaffirmation of the original position.

The next round con does much better - explicitly tying the bible verse, and the unharmed section to reference miscarriage. This is a major point, and pushes the bible into specifically referencing that the punishment for inducing a death of an unborn child is not a life for a life.

Con does something that is imo absurd: he drops the biggest and best argument he made. Con could have continued pushing this point and I would have probably bought it! But now I am forced to reject this as an argument. As pro used this argument to bolster his position too; that counts in his favour too.

From this I can render a verdict.

I didn’t spend too much time summarizing the remainder of the arguments other than in my opening as they appear to be largely talking across one another. Pro is taking verses talking about Gods interest and care for the unborn as literal, Con as figurative. While pros position does muddy the water; by offering a potential figurative alternative, I don’t think pro did enough to show these interpretations were all specifically figurative.

Given these, I have to come down on the side of pro on these points. I don’t feel pro must find some specific passage to claim the unborn are treated as humans - though he does use cons passage to this effect; imo he merely has to chose the Bible implies it, which he did with the multiple references to the womb.

As a result, arguments to pro.