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

Abortion Should be Illegal in the U.S.

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: 5/30/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 473 times Debate No: 92036
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (2)




R1: Acceptance
R2: Arguments
R3: Rebuttals

This is a debate that is intended to communicate different ideas. No hate language. This is only my third time debating so I am not a professional debater who writes at least a page of arguments.


I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting, I will be arguing that abortion should be illegal in the U.S. because:

1) A fetus is a human. A fetus is an organism containing human DNA consisting of 46 chromosomes. In addition, it is not a parasite or just a blob of cells. Just because it doesn’t look like a human doesn’t make it not a human. For example, a tadpole doesn’t look anything like a frog but it is still the first stage of the life cycle of a frog. Likewise, an embryo is the first stage of the life cycle of a human. Even if the fetus is nurturing in a mother’s womb, a fetus is not a parasite. The fetus didn’t invade the womb from the outside; it was already there from the moment of conception. Finally, it may be argued that a fetus is just a blob of cells, but isn’t all organisms just a blob of cells? Using words or phrases such as “parasites,” “not a human,” and “a blob of cells” is derogatory and dehumanizing. A fetus is undeniably human. [1]

2) Abortion is murder. Murder is the deliberate and unlawful killing of another human being. A fetus is a human being since it is at the beginning of the development stage of the species, Homo sapiens. In addition, the mother and doctor deliberately kill a fetus during an abortion. Abortion consists of pills or surgeries. These practices not only are dangerous but also are very gruesome methods of death. Some examples of surgical abortion are Dilation and Curettage (D&C), a procedure where the cut up fetus and placenta is vacuumed into a jar, Dilation and Evacuation (D&E), a procedure where the fetus is ripped apart and crushed to be taken out of the uterus, and Dilation and Extraction (D&X), a procedure where the fetus is taken out feet first with the skull pierced by a scissor so the brain can be vacuumed. Clearly, these procedures are a gruesome and deliberate killing of a human being. [2]

3) A fetus has civil rights and liberties. Allowing women to abort a baby who may be physically or mentally handicapped is wrong and is discriminatory. It is often argued that a physically or mentally handicapped fetus can be aborted in fear of being a burden to the society and family. People should not regard life as something that can be disposed of because it fails to perform a standard. If killing a physically or mentally handicapped fetus is legal, shouldn’t the killing of the disabled and elderly who cannot meet human standards be legal? Most people would likely say no, but why can’t this concept be applied to aborted fetuses? In addition, a fetus’ right to life should not be taken away. Science clearly states that a during fertilization, a new human being is created and is alive. Even if people argue for the life of a sperm or an ovum, both are products of a human body each containing 23 chromosomes. We cannot take this unique life of a fetus away. [3]

4) Abortion is not a woman’s choice and the society has a right to stop it. Pro-choice is pro-abortion. Don’t confuse pro-choice as not being the same as pro-abortion because the only optional choice is abortion. In addition, abortion is not just the business of a woman and her doctor because it is morally wrong and a crime. Just because a woman has the burden of a fetus and must go through labor doesn’t give her the right to kill. For example, say a woman with a mental illness decides to kill her 3 children. Should she deserve punishment? If not, why? It is her choice, her business, and the society should remain silent since the metal illness never affected them. Yet she’ll still be subject to charges for child abuse because murdering one’s children is morally wrong and a crime. The same concept applies to abortion. Just because it is a choice, the society must take it into their hands to deem it as morally right or wrong.

5) Abortion takes time, money, and effort. Only 665 abortion clinics exist in the U.S. and take a while to access compared to 13,500 health clinics that don’t do abortion. In addition, abortion costs at least $300 along with other charges for examination and fuel cost. Above all, it creates a lot of stress for women to keep their abortion a secret from parents, to get an abortion due to peer pressure, and to live on with the fact that they killed their own child. It is said that abortion is fast, easy, and not painful. However, this is false. Abortion pills are by far the most dangerous procedures. Since it is a drug taken by the woman without help from the doctor and lasts for hours, it is more likely to fail or cause serious infections. Also, abortion doctors are more likely to recommend surgical abortion, which involves procedures such as taking apart fetus limbs and crushing the skull and brain. Because of abortion, women suffer physical, emotional, or mental health consequences from the abortion procedure. It’s proven that do women suffer from some type of negative feeling after abortion. [4]

6) Allowing abortion due to pregnancy from rape or incest is wrong. The rape and incest argument is often used, but only a small percentage of abortions are due to this reason. First of all, if there is a rape or incest, pregnancy can still be prevented. Even if a human is conceived from rape or incest, abortion should not end its life regardless because the fetus is a human and is innocent. Allowing abortion for incest and rape creates the myth that abortion is healing the victim. This is completely untrue and can only worsen the effect of rape or incest. Even though the child may remind the mother of the terrible experience, a mother requires support from children and family. The mother and child bond is especially needed during the distress of a victim of rape or incest. Above all, people should not tell women to turn towards abortion after a rape or incest but towards support from family and friends. [5]

7) A fetus that is dependent on the mother doesn’t mean that it can be killed. A fetus may be dependent on the mother and cause serious financial hardships and stress. However, if the killing of a dependent child is permitted, infants, toddlers, and handicaps can be killed as well. After all, infants and toddlers require more time to look after and more help with eating, changing diapers, and moving around, and handicaps require more assistance from machines or people for extra support. Nevertheless, the role of a parent in the society is to take care of the child. Additionally, some may argue that the fetus exists and is part of a woman’s body. The fetus is a completely different body compared to the mother. The fetus has its own set of chromosomes, its own blood, and its own body parts and mind. As it develops, it can move and kick. This is all proof that the fetus is its own body but is only temporarily supported. It is a duty of a woman to take care of the child. It is also the duty of the society to support the mother and the child. Above all, the dependency of a human doesn’t qualify as a legitimate reason to kill him/her. [6]

8) Making abortion is illegal doesn’t make it stop is a bad argument. Just because abortion will still be happening when it is illegal doesn’t mean it should be legalized. For example, there about 45 murders per day in the U.S. Since murders cannot be stopped, should it be legalized? Another example is child abuse and neglect. Because there are thousands of child abuse and neglect that cannot be managed, should child abuse and neglect should be legalized? The logic behind legalizing something that is morally wrong may be strong a strong argument but it clearly falls apart. Society is in a position to make sure that morally wrong crimes are not committed by establishing rules and laws. By establishing rules and laws, it guides and educates people to stop committing crimes. [7]

In conclusion, Roe v. Wade should be overruled because 9 justices shouldn’t have the power to make abortion legal. Abortion is based on personal interests and is pressured upon women. Abortion dehumanizes and destroys morality. End abortion and save lives.



I will now refute your claims by explaining why abortion is not unconstitutional, an why women deserve the right to control their own bodies.

Response to First Argument: The dictionary definition (the more accurate definition) of a fetus is a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth. [1] Besides in sperm and egg cells, the DNA in all human cells are housed in 46 chromosomes, so this trait isn't specific to human fetuses. [2] A fetus technically is a parasite. The definition of a parasite is an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.

Now to address your claim that a fetus is human. Yes, in a biological sense, it is. The genetic life of an individual begins when an egg cell gains it's full set of 46 chromosomes. It becomes a unique cell that can become a baby if you let it grow. Does this mean this cell cannot be aborted because it can eventually become a baby? No. The only real difference between it and somatic cells is the potential to become a baby. Technically, that isn't a real difference, since scientists can already use somatic cells to clone organisms, including humans. [3] It is also possible to make human sperm and eggs from skin cells, so since skin cells have the potential to become babies, killing skin cells should be illegal (which would be ridiculous). [4]

When a human becomes a fetus, that is where the real debate begins. While the biological definition of a human is a homo sapien, there are other definitions as well. Another definition of human is a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species. [5] Now let's talk about the definition of person, specifically, in the eyes of the law. In order for a homo sapien to be deemed a person in the eyes of the law, they must be born alive, which means completely extracted from the mother. If they are not born alive, they cannot be considered a natural person in a legal document, Act of Congress, ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States. [6] A natural person (as opposed to a legal or artificial person) is a human being who is capable of assuming obligations and capable of holding rights. [7] Therefore, an unborn homo sapien does not have the same rights a human born alive does.

Response to Second Argument: Even if everyone on earth agreed that abortion was morally wrong, if it is legal (which it is), it is not unlawful, and therefore not murder. As I have stated earlier, a fetus does not have the same rights a born homo sapien does. You then go on to describe the gruesome ways fetuses are killed. This is a great example of the affective fallacy, which is when you use your emotions as an argument. If you believe abortion is morally wrong, that's fine, but that is a separate debate (that I'd be willing to partake in). This debate is about whether or not it should be legal, meaning you must prove that abortion is unconstitutional. Despite all the movements trying to give unborn babies legal personhood, abortion is legal in all 50 states, and a baby legally becomes a person when they are born. [6] [8] [9]

Response to Argument Three: Any argument I could have made, I've already made previously.

Response to Argument Four: A fetus is living inside of the mother's body and off the food she eats as a parasite, and does not have the rights a person does. Children are not parasites, but people with rights and the mother's chosen responsibility. She has no right to kill them, because they have legal personhood. She has the responsibility to raise them, because she brought them into the world willingly. If she didn't want them, she would have gotten an abortion.

Response to Argument Five: You are saying, that because there aren't many abortion clinics relative to health clinics, abortion should be illegal. That makes no sense. I was going to fact check all of this, but even giving you the benefit of the doubt, none of the points you brought up are reasons to make abortion illegal.

Response to Argument Six: When you say pregnancy can be prevented, are you referring to birth control? Not all women happen to be on birth control when they get raped.

If a women is raped and becomes pregnant, a man who violated her has planted a parasite inside of her, and she has the right to rid herself of it. Trust me, if a woman doesn't want a child, rape or not, that child will forever be a burden on her. Abortion ensures that every child is a wanted child.

And yes, a woman can get raped and decide she wants to keep the baby. Good for her. But to women who doesn't want to be raped and forced to raise their rapist's child, abortion is an option.

I'm about to use the affective fallacy, but that is only because I find your sixth point very insulting to rape victims, and I'm countering your subjective argument with my subjective opinion. You say abortion will make the pain worse. If I, a fourteen-year-old girl, were raped now, instead of living the life I planned out to myself, my dreams would be put on delay. No, not delay, they'd be crushed.

Response to Argument Seven: Most of this I refuted in my response to argument four. I will now add on to that here.

A fetus is a separate body that feeds of it's mother's food and nutrients. A fetus is parasite, and it's mother has the right to rid herself of anything parasitic, such as a tapeworm or lice.

Response to Argument Eight: This is a fair enough point. If it abortion was made illegal, abortions wouldn't stop, but would defiantly reduce in number. This argument by itself, however, is not enough.


Debate Round No. 2


By accepting this debate, you have agreed to the rules. However, instead of giving your arguments in R2, you gave rebuttals to my arguments thus violating the rules set up in R1. Anyways, since I cannot post rebuttals to your arguments, I will give surrebuttals.

Surrebuttal 1: Firstly, it is agreed upon that the fetus contains human DNA and 46 chromosomes thus is a human. However, the trait that is specific to a human fetus is the unique DNA composition that makes a fetus’ cells different from the mother’s or father’s cells. In addition, even if the fetus is taking nutrients from the mother, the term parasite is misleading. Claiming that a fetus is a parasite, you and I must be parasites since a parasite remains a parasite for life. Furthermore, a breastfed baby must be a parasite as well because it is taking nutrients from the mother. Above all, science says a parasite does not live off its own species [1]. As a result, your claim to a fetus being a parasite is wrong since you confirmed that the fetus and the mother are both humans.

Arguing for genetic engineering is irrelevant to this debate. This debate is on abortion for naturally created humans not on human-made humans. Even so, what separates a skin cell from a zygote is the DNA. The skin cell will contain the same DNA from the human it came from. It is not a different human. Meanwhile, the zygote has a completely different DNA from everyone else. This is a unique human. Skin cells are part of a human, and a zygote is a human.

If a fetus only becomes a person when it comes out of a womb, explain the San Francisco fetal surgery. The 23-week old fetus was taken out of the womb, repaired, and put back in the womb [2]. During that short time out of the womb, this fetus becomes a person according to you. However, once it is put back in the womb, does it lose its personhood? In addition, when does the Federal Government grant us personhood and why is personhood granted only for those who are capable? Slaves were not considered a full person by the government but as three-fifths of a person, and the handicapped are not capable of performing all the functions of a normal human. Above all, when do rights need to be given by the government? The Declaration of Independence says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” [3]. The government does not give rights because people already possess these rights. Since the fetus is a human and given the example that personhood cannot be defined by birth, the fetus possesses unalienable rights. [1]

Surrebuttal 2: MLK once said in his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail” that “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws [4].” Even if abortion is legal and is a law, it is an unjust law. Unjust is defined as “not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair [5].” By incorporating your anecdote on the immorality of abortion, people have the legal responsibility the overturn abortion. In addition, even though it is argued that people should stop overturning what is legal, slavery was legal until the ratification of the 13th amendment. In addition, Article 1, Section 2, “three-fifths of all other persons” was overturned as slaves were given their unalienable rights [6]. “Legally” the slaves are three-fifths of a person and it was Constitutional. As a result, your argument that personhood must be legal falls apart because it is clear that slaves were denied legal personhood. Likewise, fetuses do not need the government to grant personhood. Abortion is unconstitutional because the only argument for its constitutionality is the “right of personal privacy protected by the due process clause [7].” Nonetheless, the Due Process Clause also says to not “deprive any person of life [8][9].” Clearly, privacy is implied while life is enumerated. Since a fetus is a person, its life prevails over the right to privacy.

Surrebuttal 4: A fetus is living inside the mother and gaining nutrition from her. However, some babies gain nutrition through breastfeeding. Given a situation in which the mother has no choice but breastfeed the child, the mother would be legally allowed to kill her baby because it is a parasite and it is depleting the nutrients from the mother. You have claimed a woman can legally kill if someone afflict some damage to her body. The question raised is: whose rights win? Are the rights of bodily autonomy or the right to life more important?

Surrebuttal 5: Given that there is a time frame of 43 years to provide abortion all across the U.S., abortion clinics have been growing too slow compared to other health clinics. In addition, abortion clinics claim that they provide other services but so do other clinics. Above all, more money is spent on abortion campaigns than other services to the poor. If pro-choicers advocate for the financially struggling getting a choice, how come $16.8 million is permitted towards advertisement for abortions while the poor receives no financial aid towards keeping their baby [10]. It is outrageous how abortion costs at least $300 for all people [11]. Not only does the poor not get to keep their baby, they have to pay fees to kill their child. Abortion exploits the poor and offers no choices or aid.

Surrebuttal 6: The Emergency Contraceptives can prevent pregnancies by stopping fertilization [12]. However, if a pregnancy does occur, abortion should not be an option. Abortion does not make every child a wanted child. If there is abortion for cases of rape or incest, the fetus is not wanted because it is a disgrace, a reminder, and a burden to the mother. Above all, you claimed in response to argument 4 that “If she didn't want them, she would have gotten an abortion.” Clearly, you stated that abortion is for a woman who does not want a child. How can you say, “every child is a wanted child” if you already said, “an unwanted child can be aborted of an unwanted child is a dead child” In addition, the man who committed the rape should be subject to punishment, not the fetus. The fetus is innocent and did not commit crimes. Now addressing the hypothetical situation of rape, even if the dreams of an individual are shattered or destroyed by rape, the anger and frustration should not be towards the fetus. Rather, start again or give the child to adoption. One of the quotes in Macbeth by Shakespeare is “what’s done cannot be undone [13].” What has happened cannot be reversed; abortion does not “unrape”.

Surrebuttal 8: Argument 8 justifies the actions of making abortion illegal and can stand on its own. You have accepted the fact that making abortion illegal reduces abortions thus proving the point of making abortion illegal.

















corporealbeing forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by KZC 4 months ago
Lexus, I would debate if possible, but am extremely busy this summer. I may not even have time to debate this year. Thanks though!
Posted by Lexus 4 months ago
KZC, I am interested in having this debate with you if you are interested in having a debate with me. I won't be using those cheap shots that I have been using as of late (suicide bombing and the like), because I appreciate your thinking and wish to engage with it.
Posted by bearski 4 months ago
I wonder how many can't vote on here for some unknown and probably flimsy reason. No wonder next to no one votes in most of the arguments.
Posted by Ragnar 4 months ago
And I sadly can't vote on this issue, due to how strong my own bias is.
Posted by Ragnar 4 months ago
My advice on fonts, is to always set everything to Times New Roman size 14.
Posted by KZC 4 months ago
Can anyone vote?
Posted by KZC 4 months ago
My surrebuttals are numbered according to your rebuttals. So surrebuttal 5 is to your response to argument 5. Anyways, corporealbeing, I had a great time debating with. I am impressed at your skills as a deep thinker at the age of 14. I had never debated anyone like you who have kept me critically thinking. I just want to apologize for the affective fallacy and rude statements I had made. Again, it was nice to debate you. Thank you for this opportunity and may the best one win!
Posted by corporealbeing 4 months ago
Sorry for the weird font in round two. I'm not sure what happened.
Posted by Ragnar 4 months ago
It's not the biggest deal, but it's helpful. Otherwise I will say good job on the sources, .edu's in there always strengthen the appeal IMO.
Posted by KZC 4 months ago
I'm so sorry. I didn't know that. It is only my first couple of times debating. I'll keep that in mind next time.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by NewLifeChristian 4 months 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: F/F
Vote Placed by Lexus 4 months 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Because of the nature of the rules, breaking the round structure should be given as a loss of conduct, as well as a forfeiture leading to a loss of conduct. When deciding arguments, because of the way that the rules were set up (each side giving a constructive, burdened case), the negative had a burden that they never met by proving that the negative of the resolution is net better than the affirmative. Even if this wasn't necessary, they had dropped every counter-rebuttal that the affirmative had presented, so there is no way to vote neg.