The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
10 Points

Abortion Is Good For Society

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 648 times Debate No: 63651
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




Why are people so sensitive and controversial about abortion? Abortion is just eliminating a fetus from a woman's womb. How is that even bad? Because a fetus is considered to have life since it can grow, think, feel, and develop? A fetus is a fetus; it is not human until it comes out of the mother's womb. Until then, it is just ... a fetus! Fetuses are even less functional than animals - they can't locomote, they can't think, they can't reproduce, they can't have emotions, and they can't communicate. A human is not considered human until they come out of the mother's womb, like said before.

Now I know that abortion is very controversial and that many people feel that you are robbing unborn humans of their life, but they aren't even alive. How would they know if they were going to die? Will they feel anything at all? They can't! Abortion is not killing an unborn human; it is simple removing a fetus - a parasite - from your body because you decide it to. I could go on forever on how a fetus is not a human, but if you refuse to accept that a fetus and a human aren't the same, then that is too bad for you.

There are many situations where I feel that abortion is totally acceptable and situations where it isn't, such as the following below:

-When a woman gets raped and is forced to become pregnant
-When a woman gets pregnant from unprotected sexual intercourse
-When a woman discovers their child is going to become mentally retarded
-When a woman discovers their child will have diseases, illnesses, and disabilities
-When a woman's own life is in grave danger when in labor

Situations where I feel the complete opposite are few, but they are here anyways:

-When another person forces to remove the fetus from the pregnant woman
-When a woman cannot financially support a child because they are too lazy
-When a woman wants to abort the fetus just to avoid responsibility

Some may ask me: How would you feel if you were aborted? If I'm still not alive, I can't exist! And if I can't exist, I wouldn't be here! And if I wasn't here, I wouldn't be able to tell you my opinions or confess my feelings because I simply do not exist! It doesn't matter if the fetus wants to exist or not, it's entirely up to the decision of the mother and nobody else. The fetus isn't going to come back from the dead and seek revenge, like some ignorant religious people claim to be the case if you do abort.

Bottom line, abortion is totally normal as you are just removing a parasite from your body. Yes, it's a parasite because like an actual parasite, it is literally feeding off of the host's nutrients and living inside and contributes nothing to give back. Parasites will also leave the host when they are ready to do so. Therefore, abortion is not about killing human life, it is just about removing an unwanted parasite from your womb.


I would like to begin by affirming the emotional sensitivity of this topic. My hope is to have a respectful and constructive discussion without offending either side.

My opponent is making a positive claim and therefore assumes burden of proof. Specific claims that Pro made which require proof are: a fetus is not alive, a fetus is not human, human life begins at birth, a fetus cannot feel anything, human life is defined by an organism that can locomote, think, reproduce, have emotions, and communicate, etc...

I will focus on Pro's claims about the nature of life and the status of a fetus. At the end, I will expose some inconsistencies with my opponent's list of when abortion is justified/unjustified.

Before we consider what human life is, we must first examine the characteristics of life in general. I will examine multiple different definitions of life across numerous disciplines and determine if an unborn child can be included within each definition.

I will start with the dictionary. Two definitions of life according the Merriam-Webster dictionary are:

1) The ability to grow, change, etc., that separates plants and animals from things like water or rocks

2) An organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction

Starting with the first definition, we must ask if an embryo has the ability to grow and change. The answer is undoubtedly yes. Pregnancy tests cannot detect a pregnancy until week 4 or later. By this time, a fertilized egg has already implanted in the uterus and is dividing cells. At the very earliest moment a woman can know she's pregnant, a fertilized egg has already begun to grow and change. Therefore, it fits our first definition of life.

For definition number two, does an unborn child possess the capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction? Yes. An unborn child can absorb and metabolize nutrients, they grow, they can detect light, sound, and touch stimuli while in the womb (a fetus actually CAN feel). While they obviously cannot reproduce, they begin developing sex organs within a few weeks and females produce eggs during week 16. They are growing the capability to reproduce, which will not be fully actualized until puberty. Once again, an unborn child seems to fit into the definition of life.

Let's move on to other categorical definitions. Medically, life is defined as "The energy that enables organisms to grow, reproduce, absorb and use nutrients, and evolve... [1]." Do the unborn possess this energy? Yes.

What about in the realm of astrophysics? Astronomers find it more difficult to define life because they must consider its possible existence in unknown conditions. However, we do have some attempts. Astrobiologist Benton Clark of the University of Colorado proposes that life involves three factors: "Life reproduces, and life uses energy. These functions follow a set of instructions embedded within the organism [2]." The "set of instructions" Clark refers to is DNA or something similar. NASA observes that life as we know it on earth tends to be complex, absorbs energy from its environment, synthesizes absorbed energy into growth and reproductive capability, and reacts to stimuli [3]. Once again, unborn embryos/fetuses meet each one of these characteristics in some capacity. While they cannot reproduce themselves, they eventually will be able to if allowed to reach puberty. They absorb energy from their environment (the mother) and synthesize that energy into growth. They possess DNA, and they react to stimuli. I submit, therefore, that the unborn meet this definition of life as well.

Therefore, according to numerous definitions the unborn are living things. This refutes Pro's ridiculous claim that a fetus is not a living thing. Now we must take it one step further and ask if it's a human life? There are biological and philosophical considerations that can help us answer this question.

Biologically, humans have 46 chromosomes with DNA specific to the Homo Sapiens species. All 46 chromosomes, as well as the human specific DNA that comes with them, are present in the zygote the moment fertilization occurs. According to the book Human Embryology & Teratology, "fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. [4]"

Even if an abortion happens immediately after pregnancy can first be confirmed (4 weeks), the embryo has already begun developing a brain, spinal cord, and heart. By week 6, the arms, legs, eyes, and bones develop. The heart also begins beating [5]. These are all distinctly human features. The brain and spine of a fetus do not belong to some separate, sub-human species. They are genetically fully Homo Sapien - just at an early stage of development.

Philosophically, in order to identify an embryo as "non-human," there must logically then be some point at which that organism does become fully human. This distinction is very difficult to make unless you draw it at the moment of birth. But even drawing the line at birth presents philosophical problems. Is a baby really not fully human until the second it leaves the womb? How about 30 seconds before? 3 hours? 3 days? What about after leaving the womb but before the umbilical cord is cut (since the baby is still attached to the mother)? What about after the cord is cut, since the baby is still completely dependent on others for survival and its brain is still not developed? I am interested to hear my opponent prove that a baby is somehow non-human 30 seconds before birth.

Let's look at my opponent's definition of human life: an organism that can locomote, think, reproduce, have emotions, and communicate:

Locomote means to move around - so is a paralyzed person not human?

Can my opponent prove that a fetus cannot think? It's well known that a fetus can recognize voices while in the womb and there is strong evidence that a fetus has dreams too.

A fetus cannot reproduce, but neither can a 3 year old. Is a 3 year old not human?

Does a fetus have emotions? I don't know, but if they don't then a 1 hour old baby probably doesn't yet either - so is that 1 hour old baby not human?

A fetus cannot communicate - but neither can an unconscious adult. Does that adult lose their humanity until they regain consciousness?

Finally, Pro says that abortion is completely a mother's choice. Yet, Pro believes it's wrong to get an abortion if a woman decides she cannot financially support the child, or if she decides she wants to avoid responsibility. This is logically inconsistent - how can abortion be totally a mother's choice, yet she is wrong if she choses to get an abortion for these reasons? What makes it wrong?

I look forward to Pro's explanations.

[1] Mosby"s Medical Dictionary (8th Edition, Elsevier, 2009).



[4] O'Rahilly, Ronan and Muller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 8-29

Debate Round No. 1


Did you get offended by it or something? What are you, a drama queen? Anyways, just because what I say may seem to emotionally discomfort some people does not mean that I am purposely offending other people. That's why many politicians don't argue to their fullest potential for political correctness. And I would love to see what my inconsistencies are, so that I can prove you wrong...

You state that life is anything that can grow and change, then you say things like rocks aren't considered life? I don't know about you, but rocks certainly do grow and change over time and do have life as they will eventually leave existence, just not the same way organisms do. Same with the Sun and other stars, they can grow and change; in fact, astronomers have scientifically proven that stars indeed have life, come from nebula gas (or whatever the gas is called), go through many phases or transformations similar to metamorphosis, and will die off as a black hole or super nova. Funny how you just contradicted yourself by adding that definition of life.

Just because it grows and change at week 4 doesn't mean it's life. What about before week 4; what about weeks 1-3 where the moment of conception occurs? That's what many people say when life occurs, but both you and what they say is just stupid and has little to no logical reasoning whatsoever. Just because an egg has become to grow and change, doesn't mean it's life. Like you said, an egg is not life so why are you stating that the fetus is life if it is still an egg? You just contradicted yourself right there without even realizing it!

You keep supporting your arguments by saying that an unborn child has this, an unborn child is that. Again, you are wrong with your contradictions. How does an unborn child have life if it isn't born yet? Clearly, you do not even know the definition of unborn, otherwise you would be saying other claims to not contradict yourself. By the way, the definition of unborn is not yet born, not yet having life. How can something that is not even born yet have life? Also, just because they develop sexual organs doesn't mean they can reproduce. Like you said as another contradiction statement that I can use against you, they cannot reproduce until they reach puberty. And how can a fetus feel emotions? They can only feel physically, not emotionally - what were you thinking?

Then many things that are not considered to be living like the Earth itself and plants are life as it has energy (both rely on the Sun) to sustain life, to reproduce, and so on. Why does an unborn being considered life when planets, stars, and other things in the cosmos don't? You say that fetuses can eventually reproduce when in puberty, but that is after exiting the womb and after they are considered to be born and have life. Do you not realize all of your contradictions that you keep making? Also, stop repeating the same things over and over again if there is no purpose to do so - we are in a formal debate, please stick to the rules of it.

You're not a teacher, you are her to debate. I already know about all of that sexual education crap. Just because they resemble us extremely closely does not mean they are like us. Are apes like chimpanzees and orangutans considered to be part of the human race just because they share approximately 98% of our genes. I'll let you decide on that one. Also, when a fetus is considered to have life is the second it comes out of the womb; not before it comes out of the womb, not after the cord is cut, and not during the first couple of days when it is still extremely dependent to survive. I know that philosophy is all about the meaning of life and can be used as mind games, but you seriously can't fool me. A smart rat like me won't fall for the cheese just to get pounced by the cat. How about I call the top dog to do that instead?

About my own arguments, I'll copy it in the way you wrote it as well:

-A paralyzed person is life because they can still move around some of their body parts and they can certainly move around their internal organs indirectly as certain organs like the heart and lungs cannot work unless they move.

-Again, a 3 year old human is considered life because it is already born, it already came out of the womb. You know your mind games aren't working that well on me...

-So you're telling me with your logic, then all plants, bacteria, and fungi are not life simply because they cannot communicate with each other through speech, text, noises, or gestures?

-Those are just my recommendations to woman out there; I actually don't give two dumps if they aborted or not, even if I was a female human myself.

-By the way you argue, you either must be a female yourself or an extreme feminist - if you are, then too bad if I offended you; it's not my fault females are wired to be emotionally sensitive.


Well, I guess the whole respectful conversation thing is out the window. Pro commits ad hominem multiple times in their argument. As such, I ask they be penalized for conduct.

I will address my opponent's protests in order.

I did not state that life is anything that can grow or change - the dictionary did.

Rocks do change, but they do not "grow." They change because of erosion - either wearing them down or piling more sediment on top of them. Same with stars - they do "grow," but it's different - stars are not made of living organic cells. In any case, I included all those definitions to refute Pro's claim regarding fetuses in Round 1 that "they aren't even alive." If my opponent is willing to admit that rocks, stars, and plants are alive, then certainly a fetus is also alive.

Life prior to week 4 - In the vast majority of cases, a woman cannot detect pregnancy until 4 weeks after conception. In order to intentionally terminate a pregnancy (abort), you must know you're pregnant. So if we're debating abortion, then we are mostly discussing this period after 4 weeks. The organism is not an "egg" prior to week 4, so I'm not sure what my opponent is talking about. I agree that an egg is not human life, but we are not discussing eggs here. The second an egg is fertilized, it becomes a zygote complete with 46 human chromosomes and DNA unique to the homo sapien species.

Pro keeps saying that "not yet born" is the same as "not yet alive." Since Pro has burden of proof, I ask them again to prove this claim. What specific event or quality makes a baby non-living 30 seconds before birth, and living 30 seconds after? If a fetus is not alive inside the womb, then how can it hear voices, recognize light and touch stimuli, and have a beating heart? How can a non-living organism do all these things?

Reproduction: Pro continues to say a living human must be able to reproduce. I admit a fetus cannot reproduce. But once again, I ask my opponent - what about someone who is born sterile - are they not human? Pro's answer in the last round was that a 3 year old is already born, so it's alive. But that returns us to the previous paragraph's question. This is circular reasoning, not an actual answer to the question,

Pro says a paralyzed person is still alive because they can move some body parts and their internal organs. A fetus can as well. A fetus can move its arms and legs inside the womb, and its internal organs begin moving and working very early in pregnancy.

Communication - I am not saying plants aren't life because they don't communicate, I'm refuting the claim that a fetus is somehow sub-human because it cannot yet communicate. There are times when full grown people cannot communicate, yet they are still human.

Here's another argument to demonstrate that, even legally, the unborn are regarded as living members of the human species - American law recognizes an unborn fetus as an individual with individual rights at every point in pregnancy. In 2004, the federal government passed into law the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which makes it illegal to harm (either intentionally or unintentionally) an unborn child. The law defines "unborn child" as follows: "the term 'unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term 'child in utero' or 'child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." This means that if drunk driver hits a pregnant woman who, as a result, loses her baby, he can be charged with homicide even if the mother survives. This remains true whether the mother is 4 or 40 weeks pregnant. The fetus has individual rights protected by law as a member of the Homo sapiens species at every stage of development. [1]

Pro has burden of proof, but so far has failed to prove any of their claims whatsoever. To clarify for the final round, I will list out my opponent's claims that still require proof:

1. A fetus is not a living thing
2. A fetus is not human
3. A baby is not alive or human until birth
4. A fetus cannot feel anything
5. The definition of human life is something that can move, think, reproduce, have emotions, and communicate.

I believe the first two claims have been sufficiently refuted. I would still like to hear my opponent logically and scientifically explain the third claim (why is a baby not alive 30 seconds before birth?). Claim 4 has also been refuted. Finally, I believe I have shown that Pro's definition in claim 5 does not accurately describe human life, because living people can lack each of those attributes as well.

Looking forward to my opponent's response.

Debate Round No. 2


I was never penalized for conduct because the website moderators know that arguments can get heated up to the point that people will start to take it personally. This is especially true with controversial topics; religion, morals, and ethics; and also politics. Besides, it's not like I am using profanity, offensive language, threats, discrimination, or other unaccepted behavior in a controversial debate like this one, so let us continue and move on.

I know that you never said it and the dictionary said it. Gee, maybe I was being too metaphorical or something? Do I seriously have to stoop myself so low to writing in literal, concrete terms so that you can understand me? Come on, you can't be that stupid if you have a high knowledge of astrophysics and biology, right? (Or not, LOL)

The reason why I am arguing and admitting that unorganic things like suns and rocks are alive is to prove to you that if you consider a fetus to have life, then so can those things. How about you stop stealing my arguments that I have never even used yet! Anyways, you claim that a fetus is alive, yet those aren't; are you that illogical? It's exactly like how Christians and Jews believe in demons and devils, but not ghosts? What? And no, I will not be explaining that metaphor for you. You can go figure it out on your own, Mr. I Know More Than You But Not Know Crap About Metaphors!

I am saying what you just said as a contradiction that I can use against you! (Are you that off-topic?) Since you said an egg is not an organism and, thus, not a living thing, that clearly proves that a fetus is not a living thing, as it comes from an egg which isn't a living thing and is still inside the womb. Wait, so you do admit eggs are not living things... Okay, I pretty much won this debate because we both agree that an egg is not life so aborting a fetus is completely just and moral. But for the sake of my rebuttal, I will continue arguing even though I have virtually won when you made that confession.

You keep mentioning about seconds, but when exactly does an egg become fertilized to become human-like? At the mili-second? At the split-second? At the tenth of a second? At the hundredth of a second? At the thousandth of a second? At the micro-second? At the nano-second? At the sub-nano second? You have to be extremely specific. Same with when a fetus exits the womb or 30 seconds before or still being hatched to the umbilical cord. When exactly? Stop making false assumptions about such things if you can't even tell time properly!

There you go, you are now starting to agree with me more and more, despite me already winning after you made that egg confession earlier (though the voting will say otherwise sadly). You say I am circular reasoning but you contradicted yourself yet again! Do you have a habit of contradicting yourself or you doing this on purpose? You do circular reasoning to with the first paragraph of your argument. And no, I am not your mommy (pun intended) go figure it out on your own.

By your very inaccurate logic, you're basically saying that if a fetus can move and that indicates it is life, then so can the sun, so can islands, so can the continents of this planet, so can the planets in this solar system, so can celestial objects, so can black-holes, motor vehicles, and pretty much anything that can move naturally or artificially. I find it funny how you contradict yourself so many times. I admit I do the same, but at least I'm trying to avoid it.

You say that is protected by law, but what about in other countries besides in North America. What about Europe? What about the Russian Federation? What about Asia? What about Africa? What about Latin-America? What about Australia? Wjat about Oceania? What about the small islands? And you say if the fetus is 4 to 40 weeks, so if I purposely murder a woman's child at week 3, day 7, 23rd hour, 59th minute, 59th second, and 1 nano second before it becomes 4 weeks, then I am pretty much scot-free even with evidence, witnesses, lawyers, and law right? You are never precise with the time, only accurate; it's better to be precise in these kinds of situations.

I have already refuted the third claim, and if you don't believe me after checking, you must be smoking crack. And I have already refuted the fifth claim as well. To be honest, I already refuted those in my previous arguments, but you must be stupid or something to overlook these small tiny details. Since you were kind enough to list my errors, then I will thank you by listing yours and hopefully you can win this debate even though I have already won at this point:

1. You make many contradiction statements
2. You do circular reasoning yourself
3. You lack understanding of metaphorical statements
4. You miss tiny details that makes you fell superior

Now I hope to see my opponent's responses, but the voters will most likely choose you because I have emotionally offended them. I have technically won this debate no matter what arguments you bring up as you yourself agree with my main arguments, but the voting will say otherwise. I know I will lose for sure because of those voters, but whatever...


I rest my case.

I do not believe I need to make any more arguments. Instead, I will conclude with why the vote should go for Con.

1. My opponent did not actually make an argument. Pro made many bold claims in Round 1 but did not provide any evidence to support those claims whatsoever. Pro gave no evidence or reason for why a fetus only becomes alive after it's born. Pro gave no evidence for why a fetus is not human. Pro gave no evidence that a fetus cannot feel anything. Pro's definition of human life is logically incomplete. My opponent fell far short of meeting their burden to prove their position.

2. Pro has a very inaccurate understanding of fetal development. They continue to refer to an "egg" when actually the organism is called a zygote after conception. A zygote is completely different than an egg (23 chromosomes different, to be exact). I never said an egg is not life. I said an egg is not HUMAN life. But this debate is about everything that happens AFTER conception, so continuing to talk about unfertilized eggs is irrelevant. I most certainly did not concede the debate by discussing this - it's not even related to what we're talking about.

3. My opponent should NOT lose points for offending anyone. I was not offended by anything Pro said. Pro SHOULD lose points for using repeated ad hominem. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy, and its use renders most of my opponent's arguments invalid.

In the end, Pro made no real argument and gave no evidence for their position. I ask the vote go for Con.

(Personal note to Shrek_sDrecKid - in your next debate, people will take your ideas more seriously if you use logic and evidence rather than finger pointing and personal attacks.... just a suggestion)
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by sengejuri 2 years ago
@Shrek_sDrecKid - glad to hear it. Feel free to challenge me any time, I always welcome a good debate.
Posted by Shrek_sDrecKid 2 years ago
@sengejuri: I now am using complex logic and reasoning in my future debates as you have suggested, and I have now begun to use sources. I am not going to use sources to their maximum potential because I lack the experience and skills, but it's better than before. Also, I have improved so much since our debate about abortion together, so if we debate again, then you will certainly see the change. With the exception of probably two debates I had after this debate, I no longer point fingers or personally attack others, though I still (and will try to avoid) using personal pronouns.
Posted by Shrek_sDrecKid 2 years ago
You must be either a woman or a feminist...
Posted by NaturalFlavors 2 years ago
You might have been able to change my mind through your argument if you hadn't been so rude during it...
Posted by Shrek_sDrecKid 2 years ago
I already did; that guy keeps contradicting himself and gets many definitions wrong...
Posted by NaturalFlavors 2 years ago
Shrek_sDrecKid you'd better read sengejuri's entire argument!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument is so comically bad I almost suspect he is the fake profile of a pro-life activist prone to trolling. He loses conduct for the constant abuse of his opponent and schoolyard tone and arguments because he was incapable of even recognizing where the objection to his position lay.
Vote Placed by Sojourner 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con for Pro's ad hominem attacks and complete lack of respect throughout the course of the debate. Pro's responses were little more than trolling. S&G ? Tied (I could have given this to Pro as well, but I did not want this to appear to be a vote bomb) Arguments to Con. Pro' contentions were basically unsubstantiated claims. Con effectively refuted all of Pro's claims and Pro's tactic was to attack Con instead of Con's rebuttals. Con was able to identify Pro's arguments regarding acceptable and unacceptable abortions as being inconsistent and Pro eventually conceded. Con did a great job of remaining focused, on-point, and rational. Pro was basically on a rant after the first round. Sources to Con as Pro had none.