Instigator / Con
7
1641
rating
63
debates
65.08%
won
Topic
#977

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
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
0

After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

Speedrace
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
3
1488
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description

I will be waiving the first round because my opponent is making the positive claim. They will waive the last round. Sentencing people to hell in any of the arguments is not allowed. *cough cough*

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:

Firstly, conduct to con for pros forfeit.

Arguments: this debate appeared to fall down to whether the Bible treats unborn children as “people” with associated rights (and applicability of being killed).

Pro cites an example of when life appears begins that God knew them in the womb. He uses this to show that God considers individuals people in the womb.

Pro also cites examples of punishment for those hurting the unborn.

These appear valid.

Pro also mentions an account from numbers which he claims is just a how-to guide not an example of approving abortion. Con also appears to discount this point as irrelevant.

Con cites some examples of the Bible implying that life begins when breathed; but the best rebuttal con has is the punishment for injuring an unborn child is a fine - strongly indicating it is not considered murder.

There was a lot of back and forth here on the notion of whether “breathing” constitutes life, and in this I largely side with pro - on the grounds that it appears largely open to interpretation.

The issue relating to whether God knows someone I the womb, I side with con - it seems that the most valid interpretation is that it’s an overall knowledge, a timeless knowledge.

However, as con pointed out, the crux and tiebreaker here was the harm to an unborn child. While pro uses this to elaborate on this point, the matter of fining for a death considering that if the child was considered a life it should be death, was the clearest indication that a baby couldn’t be considered a live - and the notion that though shalt not kill applies is redundant. It was never addressed by pro.

I feel this point hands the argument to con; even using the stricter interpretation of pro due to the apparent lack of ambiguity.

Pros last raised issue about tattoos doesn’t seem to follow as con outlines. It appeared to be cuts for the dead, nor cuts in general; the lack of context makes me unable to side with pro.