Watch This Amazing Abortion Debate

This debate lasts twenty-four minutes. I was hooked in the first twenty-four seconds:

“A fetus is cells. They are cells. Are you proposing that cells be given rights?”

“That is a lie. Abortion kills babies, and that is the truth.”

“Abortion does not kill babies. Abortion is healthcare for women.”

“I guess we can just rip their arms and legs off then.”

The debate, hosted by Nas Debates on YouTube, is definitely worth your time. The question posed is “Should abortion be illegal?” Arguing the affirmative position is none other than Terrisa Bukovinac, an atheist who happens to serve on the Secular Pro-Life board; however, she is better known as the head of PAAU: Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising.

The pro-abortion position is represented by Emiliana Guereca of the Women’s March Foundation. Her introductory slide describes her as a “badass Latina Jew.” An abortion debate where neither debater is a Christian? We’re here for it!

The debate kicks off with thirty-second opening statements. Terrisa began:

I used to be pro-choice. But I’ve come to see the concept of a human non-person as one that’s been used exclusively throughout history to discriminate against whole groups of human beings. And in the case of abortion, the discrimination faced by the unborn is lethal almost 100% of the time. Abortion is the number one cause of death in America by far, and it is incompatible with the values of equality and non-violence. Abortion should be illegal.

Emiliana’s opening:

Abortion is a human right as for the woman. The woman is the one that is subjected to poverty. Forcing women to carry children is a human rights violation. The women carries the child more than nine months. So with no bodily autonomy, with no rights as a woman, what do you say to women that will be forced to give birth with no access to health insurance, with no access to anything but poverty and forced birth?

Terrisa held nothing back in making her case. She boldly shared the graphic details of what abortion is and does, refusing to give science denialism a free pass. I found Emiliana to be somewhat sloganistic and flat in her responses, but of course I’m biased. And I have to give Emiliana credit for participating in a debate at all, when many others in her movement would rather silence the discussion.

Check out the full debate below: