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

Abortion goes against all moral beliefs and is all over a bad idea.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/9/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,955 times Debate No: 29038
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)




First round is for acceptance, all regular rule for DDO apply. Second round is for main argument, third round for main rebuttal, fourth round is for second rebuttal, last is for final focus. No new information may be presented in the last round. Thank you.


I accept this easy challenge.
Debate Round No. 1


"The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, then what is in the way of me killing you or you killing me? There is nothing in between." "Mother Teresa

Because I agree with Mother Teresa that I say abortion is not a viable, moral, nor should it be a legal decision. I support the resolution for three main contentions. One: The Declaration of Independence Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Two: There are other choices than abortion. Three: Many religions do not support abortions.

For this debate I provide the following definitions from the Merriam Webster Dictionary:
Pregnant- containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body
Abortion- the termination of a pregnancy resulting in or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus
Life- a way or manner of living that starts at conception

I move straight into my first contention stating that the American Declaration of Independence does not support abortion. This first line in the Preamble is as follows: 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.
This contradicts with abortion because of the word Life. The people who kill unborn children are denying them life. Therefore denying them to America. By the way of the Declaration of Independence we should not allow abortion in the Country.

In my second contention I will talk about the different options available for women considering abortion. The first, and probably the most obvious, is adoption. There are many people in the world willing to take a child into there homes. Family and friends can take care of young ones just as easily as the mother, maybe even better. This is perfect for the idea that you cannot support the child, or are not willing to put in the time and effort.
Another idea is a mother support group. 50% of about 1.2 million, or 600,000 women who have abortions are teenagers from the age of 13-17. There is over 100 support groups in the United States that will help a mother pay for the child. All it takes is there everyday attention.
The biggest problem with raising a child is financial issues. The mother believes she cannot support the child and wants to rid her self of it. This is not true because she can only no support it on her own. Instead of getting an abortion the woman may reach out to family, friends, and even the father. This allows the baby to live and the financials to be sound.

We now move to my third and final contention. Religion in many cases does not support abortion. I have many examples; Christianity, Islamic, and Hinduism for example.
My first example is Christianity, which has had a long and complicated relationship with abortion. Most people of the Christian Religion believe that abortion is just as bad as killing someone. They say that killing a person in real life may be just as bad as abortion.
When it come to Islamic they believe that if the body has been carrying a baby for at least 120 days and an abortion is performed, it is a sin. Then they believe that before that an abortion should only be preformed if a mother"s life is in danger.
The Hindu look on the matter is close to the Christian one. Hindu texts strongly condemn abortion. Although it is practiced in India where the Social preference for boys over rule the religious rule. Therefore killing innocent baby girls.

There are many views on abortion but only one view is morally right. Abortion should no longer be allowed because of my contentions.
1.It goes against the base of the U.S. Government.
2.There are other options.
3.Religions do not support it.

Support my side by voting pro in this debate.


I believe that abortion is something that is acceptable and is not anyone else"s choice. No matter what religion you have you can"t say it is immoral and wrong. It is the woman"s choice if she wants to abort a child. My opponent believes that it is morally right to have a child that someone got after possibly being violated.
Someone may want to abort for many reasons. They may have realized there child has a birth defect and want to spare the child from pain, some may want to abort to a bad mistake in high school because they realized that once they have a child there personal gains no longer matter until the child leaves your household.
You cannot stop someone from doing this a women has a choice what she wants to do with her body and no Pope or preacher can stop it!! Some people believe that the fetus can feel the pain when it dies. Well if the cause of the creation of this child is from pain then the child will live in pain the rest of his/her life. The feeling of not being wanted hurts more than any wound someone can give you. If someone you knew and trusted said they hated you after being your friend for your whole life then that I promise you will hurt more than a stab wound.
I believe that abortion is an act of mercy. The definition of Morality is principles of what is considered right and wrong in a society. Some people claim that you would be killing a baby. Well if it was never born than there is no life lost. The definition of life is the existence of an individual animal or human being. Well if the fetus was never born than it never had life and therefor it is not murder. For clarity reasons I shall provide you the definition of murder. The definition is The premeditated killing of one human being by another.
For many years women have been fighting for equal rights. To back down on something like this goes against what they believe in. As my personal opinion I would say that Abortion is something that I believe is okay because I do not believe that anyone has the choice what a women does with her body.

Your argument is invalid for by not acknowledging that women have the right to rule their own body"s hints toward that you are being sexist. Is that what you are doing for if you are than I have already won the debate. I support equality and if you don"t then I have already won. The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution guarantees individuals the right to personal autonomy, which means that a person's decisions regarding his or her personal life are none of the government's business. That right, which is part of the right to privacy, encompasses decisions about parenthood, including a woman's right to decide for herself whether to complete or terminate a pregnancy, as well as the right to use contraception, freedom from forced sterilization and freedom from employment discrimination based on childbearing capacity.
As early as 1923, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution protects personal decisions regarding marriage and the family from governmental intrusion. In 1965, the Court ruled that a state couldn"t prohibit a married couple from practicing contraception. In 1972, it extended the right to use birth control to all people, married or single. And in its 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, the Court held that the Constitution's protections of privacy as a fundamental right encompass a woman's decision to have an abortion.
The Roe decision, which legalized abortion nationwide, led to a dramatic improvement in the lives and health of women. Before Roe, women experiencing unwanted or crisis pregnancies faced the perils and indignities of selfinduced abortion, backalley abortion, or forced childbirth. Today, Roe protects the right of women to make life choices in keeping with their conscience or religious beliefs, consistent with American tradition. And by relieving American women of the burden of unwanted pregnancies, Roe has permitted them to pursue economic opportunities on a more equal basis with men.
The movement to newly restrict reproductive choice is, therefore, not only an attack on personal autonomy but also on the principle of equality for women, and it is a grave threat to all Americans' cherished right to privacy, bodily integrity and religious liberty.
Here are the American Civil Liberties Union's answers to questions frequently asked by the public about reproductive freedom and the Constitution.
Q: How does the Constitution protect our right to privacy, including reproductive freedom, if that right isn't explicitly named in the Constitution?
A: Even though a right to privacy is not named, the Ninth Amendment states that the naming of certain rights in the Constitution does not mean that other, unnamed rights are not "retained by the people." The Supreme Court has long held that the Bill of Rights protects certain liberties that, though unenumerated, are "fundamental" to an individual's ability to function in society. These include the right to privacy, the right to travel, the right to vote and the right to marry. The Court has articulated various constitutional bases for these liberties, including the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. And in recent years, the Court has viewed the privacy right as an essential part of liberty, specifically protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The Court has also held that the government may not restrict fundamental rights without a compelling reason, and it has repeatedly struck down various state restrictions on birth control and abortion as being unjustified by a compelling reason.
Q: Is reproductive choice protected by constitutional principles other than the right to privacy?
A: Although the Supreme Court has not so held, the ACLU believes that reproductive choice is not only protected by the right to privacy, but by several other constitutional principles, including the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection of the laws" and the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion.
Since only women can become pregnant, laws that dictate whether and under what conditions childbearing should occur affect only women. By precluding only women's exercise of personal decision making, laws that prohibit or restrict abortion discriminate on the basis of sex in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
All of the world's major religions regard abortion as a theological issue, although their doctrines on the issue differ. Some religions teach that abortion is a sin; others, that it is a woman's duty if a pregnancy imperil her life or health. Bans on abortion force all citizens to conform to particular religious beliefs. Thus, the ACLU believes that such laws violate the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, which prohibits governmental encroachment on an individual's right to act according to her own beliefs or conscience. Abortion bans that establish, as a matter of law, that a fetus is a person violate the First Amendment's stricture against "an establishment of religion."
Q: Have restrictions on abortion always existed?
A: No. Abortion was legal under common law except in late pregnancy for hundreds of years, including the period when our Constitution was written.
I can thank the website below for some of my information
It is due to this website that I will most likely win.
Debate Round No. 2


For a brief road map I would like to go down my opponents case and tell you how his points are invalid. At the end of this I think you will see that abortion is not the right decision.

For my opponents first "point" (not to much structure) he has many flaws. He says that killing a child who has a birth defect is considered a mercy killing. I can automatically say this is false. My first problem with this statement is solely the words "birth defect". A birth defect, as defined by the Merriam Webster Dictionary, is a physical or biochemical defect that is present at birth and may be inherited or environmentally induced.
My obvious problem is that you need to be born to have birth defect. Here by rendering his point Invalid.
My second and last problem with his statement is I, TDK, have a birth defect. I was born with KTW Syndrome in my right leg. I have lived a happy life so far and I am completely fine. My mother gave me the right to live even though I had a birth defect I would not be here debating him if my mother wanted to do a "mercy killing". Look into the defect better and see the different people who have succeeded. My idol, Casey Martin, has the same problem as me. He was born with KTW in his right leg and went on to be a successful golfer. I one day want to become just as successful as him. As this shows, birth defects don"t ruin your life only make them stronger.

My opponent later points out that I am, by his standards being sexist by saying that abortion is wrong. As I showed in my earlier argument, I am not in fact trying to be sexist. I just believe that the unborn child has just as much the right to live as the mother. He later say, Quote: I support equality and if you don"t then I have already won.

As you can see I do support equality in all living beings. Hence my definition of life, which must be used in today"s debate, which says life, starts at conception.

Now when I looked into the amount of "work" my opponent did. At the time I was impressed then I saw almost textbook wording in his debate. After he has called me sexist, my opponent then goes into a long "question answer part of his debate" followed by, Quote: I can thank the website below for some of my information
When searching up one of his question"s word for word I found that not only is some of his info from this site, ALL of it is. Here is the site where he copied and pasted into his argument:
His words are not his own and therefore should not be considered in this debate.

It is for these reasons and many more that I respectfully urge a pro ballot in this debate.


MasterJared forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Since my opponent has forfeited that round i extend my argument and allow him to continue.


As everyone in the world knows abortion is frowned upon in many cultures and religions. I think that it is a new helpful feature for the modern world. women that were raped can have the choice of not having to have a child and losing twenty years of their life. They an solve the problem from the start. So it is from all the information that I have showed you that I believe abortion is morally right and should be accepted in modern day life not as a sin but as an act of mercy.
Debate Round No. 4


My opponent has brought up a point in his previous argument stating that if raped a woman should be able to get rid of a child. This is because she does not want a child that another man gave her unwillingly. This is the dividing line that most people walk upon when it comes to the case of abortion. It is upon this line that I myself tread. I will not focus on this point and just restate. I have already disproved most of his points and extend my argument.

Lets go down his argumetn and make sure I hit them all.

1. As everyone in the world knows abortion is frowned upon in many cultures and religions.
Response: Accpetable on all points.

2. I think that it is a new helpful feature for the modern world.
Response: If you mean helpful at ruining the chances at life for a unborn and inocent child... yes.

3. They can solve the problem from the start.
Response: No, it creates more problems than it solves. I personally would not like to live the rest of my life knowing that I killed someone.

4. So it is from all the information that I have showed you that I believe abortion is morally right and should be accepted in modern day life not as a sin but as an act of mercy.
Response: I feel he gave little evidence and did not prove that it was mercy. If the baby will be born without a leg, than et it a prostetic, if it is born with autism than there could be a cure right around the corner.

Theres always a chance and never a reason to have an abortion. Please consider these thoughts and vote Pro in todays debate.


From all the evidence I have collected and comments I have posted I hope you can all understand why you should vote for the con side of the argument.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MasterJared 5 years ago
I hope more people comment on this for hearing others opinions is why I did this.
Posted by thedebatekid 5 years ago
I think i cried in that last part. MasterJared, would you like some ice for that burn.
Posted by MasterJared 5 years ago
I like your facts and yes I am a cold person. Thank you
Posted by mstrainjr 5 years ago
Oh, and here are some more statistics:

"On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (AGI).
Only 12% of women included a physical problem with their health among reasons for having an abortion (NAF).
One per cent (of aborting women) reported that they were the survivors of rape (NAF)."

If having a child will interfere with your life, then don't have unprotected sex! DUH!
Posted by mstrainjr 5 years ago
I cannot help but think that MasterJared sounds kind of cold. This train of thought begins with his words here; the extreme end of the tracks is genocide of "weaker" races. Should we kill grandpa because he was crippled in Vietnam and is now more a burden to society than a productive member? We can't yet legally kill a crippled adult, but it's OK to kill a crippled unborn child, according to him.

I do believe in the woman's right to choose, but that choice begins before she has unprotected sex. The very purpose of sex in nature is to reproduce DNA and continue life on this planet. Should it be a surprise if a woman gets pregnant because she and her man did not act in a responsible manner? I think it would be best if folks were responsible for the results of their choices instead of looking for a way out, especially if that out involves killing an innocent life. If a couple is not prepared to have children, they should not have sex. If they are unable to master themselves, and in effect are unable to control their lusts, then condom usage, though not a perfect solution, can go a long way. I say it in other words: if a woman wants to have unprotected sex, she must be prepared for the possibility that she will get pregnant.

As for the case of rape, that makes up such a small percentage of abortion cases. Here's a fun fact from :

"In 2009, 55.3% of abortions were performed on women who had not aborted in the past; 36.6% were performed on women with one or two prior abortions, and 8.1% were performed on women with three or more prior abortions (CDC)."

As if they didn't learn the first time, 36.6% of women who had abortions in 2009 were having their second or third one! There's no excuse for that except that these women are trash.

I can understand abortion in the case of rape, but killing a life merely for the convenience of not having to be responsible for one's mistakes is just evil.
Posted by thedebatekid 5 years ago
And so the voting begins.
Posted by MasterJared 5 years ago
I just noticed a part of your debate in round 3 I believe that it false. You brought into play that your leg has some sort of defect and you said because you are living a happy life that all others with a DEFECT will live a happy life. This argument does not counter my argument. No one cares if you have a hurt leg and it is still a fact that instead of living thirty years you could have been aborted and would not have had to gone through the pain. If I remember right your deformation causes great pain. So that means that it still would have been more merciful to abort you. The less mutations in the human genetic code the better. If she aborted you then you would have not had to ho through years of pain and still you would not have had to be aborted because you could have had your leg amputated. I think a leg that bleeds pus and blood is just absolutely revolting. You should try not to play cards that can hurt you because it can always bite you back later.
Posted by thedebatekid 5 years ago
thats just mean
Posted by MasterJared 5 years ago
A wall would be nicer. (:
Posted by thedebatekid 5 years ago
if you respect the religion, dont tell them that only a wall listens
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 5 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and arguments goes to Pro for FF, sources are obvious,