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

Abortion in america

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/14/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,616 times Debate No: 20392
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)




this first round is for acceptance.


"Abortion eliminates the potential societal contributions of a future human being. The US would be an entirely different country if the mothers of our nation's heroes, great presidents, scientists, athletes, and others had chosen abortion." says the website Abortion

"Unborn babies are innocent human beings from the moment of conception. They have a fundamental right to life, which must be protected." says Abortion again.

"Many Americans who pay taxes are opposed to abortion, therefore it's morally wrong to use tax dollars to fund abortion." says

"Abortion frequently causes intense psychological pain and stress." says

"One of the cons of abortion is that it is often considered to be an act of unkindness and cruelty. Some people even associate it with snatching the rights of an unborn child to live. However, on a more scientific note, abortion can lead to several complications later in life. It may also be a hindrance to later conceptions. Although these complications are very rare, the risk involved is a chance that you would hardly want to take. Cons of abortions are that they can lead to frequent miscarriages, infections and sepsis if not administered by a medical professional. Apart from that, women may also undergo mental trauma due to guilt and depression of the act that she has performed. So considering all pros and cons of abortion, it becomes a necessity to opt for it only when you truly need it and not to make up for carelessness on your part." says

"Women often feel very guilty after an abortion." says

"It is frowned on by many people in society. It is against most religious beliefs." says
Debate Round No. 1


before making my case let me point out:

1. you broke the acceptance rule

OK here I go:

C1: abortion is a right

1973 Roe v. Wade decision holding that women have a right to choose to have an abortion during the first two trimesters of a pregnancy. [1]

This trial gave the constitutional right to women to have abortions.

Not all women think abortion is cool for themselves, but all women have the right to make this choice. [2]

Abortion = a right.

C2: A fetus does not have rights

Historically, a fetus has never (or very rarely) been considered a human being, at least not before "quickening", an old-fashioned term indicating noticeable movement of the fetus. The Catholic Church even allowed abortion until quickening, up until 1869 [3]

Fetuses are uniquely different from born human beings in major ways, which casts doubt on the claim that they can be classified as human beings. The most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. [3]

So being against abortion = against the rights of a living person. The courts have already decreed, person hood begins after birth, not before.

C3: Abortion is safer then birth.

The guidelines, from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, also say that most women who terminate a pregnancy will not suffer any psychological problems as a result. [4]

This refutes your claim, people don't get physiological problems from abortions.

Doctors and nurses in Britain are being advised to tell their patients that having an abortion is safer than having the baby [5]

yep, my point (lol it is fox news ?!?!)

Its first recommendation on "what women need to know" instructs health professionals: "Women should be advised that abortion is generally safer than continuing a pregnancy to term." [5]

Of these women, 97% report no complications; 2.5% have minor complications that can be handled at the medical office or abortion facility; and less than 0.5% have more serious complications that require some additional surgical procedure and/or hospitalization. [6]

Abortion = safe.

Modern abortion procedures are safe. The risk of a woman’s death from abortion is less than one in 100,000. Whereas, the risk of a woman dying from giving birth is 13.3 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies. [8]

C4: Illegal abortions are unsafe

Between the 1880s and 1973, abortion was illegal in all or most U.S. states, and many women died or had serious medical problems as a result. Women often made desperate and dangerous attempts to induce their own abortions or resorted to untrained practitioners who performed abortions with primitive instruments or in unsanitary conditions. [6]

Around the world, in countries where abortion is illegal, it remains a leading cause of maternal death. An estimated 68,000 women worldwide die each year from unsafe abortions. [6]

So abortion is not safe when illegal, people still abort, and more people die from abortions when it is illegal.

C5: Abortion still happens when abortion is restricted/illegal

Yet, while it may seem paradoxical, a country's abortion rate is not closely correlated with whether abortion is legal there. For example, abortion levels are quite high in Latin American countries, where abortion is highly restricted. [7]

At the same time, abortion rates are quite low throughout Western Europe, where the procedure is legal and widely available. [7]

So in places where it is legal there are low abortion rates.


The US abortion rate fell 29% between 1990 and 2005, from 27.4 to 19.4 abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age, before leveling out from 2005-2008. [8]

It is legal here, the abortion rate still drops.


68,000 maternal deaths each year in countries where abortion is not legal. [8]

Legal abortion = safe, illegal abortion = unsafe. So banning it would put women in jeopardy.

C6: Abortion does not cause breast cancer

They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer. [9]

After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found that induced abortion(s) had no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer. [10]

abortion =/= cause for breast cancer


abortion is safe a right, does not murder, and does not cause many side effects or mental problems. So it is a right, and is safe, that is why abortion should stay.

sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]


First Argument:

"5. Abortion Aggravates Child Abuse

If children are viewed as expendable before birth, they will be viewed as expendable after birth. A study by Dr Phillip Ney, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Christ Church, New Zealand, clearly pointed to the fact that abortion (and its acceptance of the violence of killing the unborn) lowered a parent's psychic resistance to violence and abuse of the born.9

A landmark study of 674 abused children was conducted by University of Southern California professor, Edward Lenoski. He discovered that 91% were from planned pregnancies; they were definitely wanted by their parents. What is startling is that, in society in general, 63% of pregnancies are planned. Hence, among abused children, a significantly higher percentage were 'unwanted children' compared to the percentage of 'wanted children' in society at large."

It is illogical to argue that a child is protected from abuse through abortion since abortion is the most horrific form of child abuse." says

Second Argument:

"8. Most South Africans Oppose Abortion

A professional survey done by the MarkData arm of Human Sciences Research Council in September and October 1995 shows that the public were strongly opposed to abortion.

Legalised abortion was rejected by the following huge percentages by supporters of the various political parties: ANC: 76.8%, Freedom Front: 75.2%, IFP: 74.6%, DP: 40.5% and others 72.8%. A survey commissioned by the Centre for Policy Studies produced similar results.

In 1994, the government set up an Ad-hoc committee on Abortion and Sterilisation. They invited oral and written submissions, declaring that they were open, transparent and democratic. So South Africans responded in their thousands. Only the ministry of Health in Pretoria counted their submissions, they reported that they had received 157 000 submissions, of which, 495 were pro-abortion. Thus 99.97% of those who had cared enough to respond were pro-life! Astoundingly, the committee, headed by Dr S A Nkomo, an ANC member, acknowledged that most of the public submissions were against abortion on demand, but dismissed them because they 'came largely from Christians'. Are Christians not citizens of South Africa? Are our views invalid? If the government can dismiss the vast majority of submissions on the grounds that they were sent in by Christians, then this is religious discrimination!" says

Third Argument:

"9. The Overpopulation Argument

The commonly accepted ideology states that this world is overpopulated, this is the reason for poverty and oppression in the world and the way to solve these problems is to control the population.

However, is the world really overpopulated? Can we not feed ourselves? In his book "Exploding Population Myths" Jim Peron conclusively proves that the population is not the problem:

"In most of the world, food production is easily outstripping population growth, and on a world-wide basis the problem of overpopulation no longer exists. It is true, of course, that some nations still cannot feed themselves, but the reasons for this tend to be political...[for example] Zimbabwe has seen a massive decline in food production since independence, as have most of the emerging nations of Africa. But Africa is the last bastion of state planning and socialism, and it is no accident that it is also the last bastion of famine."15

"War and socialism are two great destroyers of the food supply in Africa, as they have been in other countries."16

In fact, in 1994, the United Nations Population Fund acknowledged that the world can feed itself in its report that concluded that "[food] production should be sufficient to meet all needs for the foreseeable future..."17

If everyone in the world moved to South Africa, the population density per square mile would be 11 502 - this is less than Budapest (16 691) or Milan (13 806) and about the same as Berlin (11 026) or New York (11 480).18 South Africa's population density is one-third that of Austria,19 and Austria does not have a problem with overcrowding and poverty. The answer is not to control population. It is to encourage people to become productive.

"Africa is the least populated of all the continents and has the ability to feed the entire world two times over...The good news for the people of Africa is that they need not suffer in poverty any longer. The solution is simple: free the people to produce; allow the people to keep what they produce; and the people will produce."20" says
Debate Round No. 2


um I have seen no refutations. Extend arguments.

R1: child abuse

Dr. Ferriera found no relationship between unplanned pregnancies and newborn deviant behavior. In fact, there were more deviant babies of mothers who had planned their pregnancy than those who had not. [1]

This shows wanted kids have more problems, therefore banning abortion would raise the rates of deviant children, therefore making kids have worse lives.

Also allowing abortion lowers crime:

"The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime" is a controversial paper by John J. Donohue III of Yale University and Steven Levitt of University of Chicago that argues that the legalization of abortion in the 1970s contributed significantly to reductions in crime rates experienced in the 1990s. [2]

Levitt came to the conclusion that about 40 percent of crime's decline was the result of locking up a million more criminals. Fifteen percent of the drop was attributed to the waning of the crack epidemic. And roughly 10 percent could be credited to having more cops on the streets.

"What's left over -- 30 [percent] or 40 percent -- I actually believe is attributable to a cause that no one ever expected, which was the legalization of abortion," Levitt said. [3]

Abortion lowers crime. This refutes your contention.

R2: More south Africans are against abortion

The resolution is about america not Africa. This argument does not relate to the resolution as we are debating abortion in america. This argument is false. But since you like polls:

ABC poll:

legal in all cases: 20%
Legal in most cases: 35%
Illegal in all cases: 17%
Illegal in most cases: 26% [4]

More people think abortion should be legal in most/all cases.So if you like majority rule, then abortion rules.

Always legal | sometimes legal| Always illegal | unsure (Gallup poll) [4]
21 57 18 4

So in america (which is the resolution) I have the majority.

R3: Overpopulation

um since when was this an abortion issue? I agree it is not overpopulated but that is not a reason to ban abortion. Either way IF is becomes a problem then it would control it. But in all realities this isn't an abortion argument.


my opponent didn't refute my contentions and my arguments are stronger. VOTE PRO!

sources: [1] [2] [3] [4]


"Always remember our Biblical mandate, Thou shalt not kill, Exodus 20:13, which is one of the Ten Commandments." says

"Abortion destroys spiritually. When a woman destroys to abort a baby then she is taking the very life that God has given her to be a steward over. Once again, a woman that has had an abortion can find healing and forgiveness but if one is considering having an abortion then you can know that God will take care of you and your baby." says
Debate Round No. 3


extend arguments again.

R1: thou shall not murder

Religion is not a reason to ban something. America is not theocracy, outlawing something due to religion is called theocracy, america is not theocracy:

Theocracy is derived from the two Greek words Qeo/j(Theos) meaning "God" and kra/tein (cratein) meaning "to rule." The Reverend Rod Parsley, a champion of theocracy, or what he calls a "christocracy," told his congregation at the World Harvest Church, located just outside Columbus, Ohio, "Theocracy means God is in control, and you are not." [1]

So is in control of our goverment? No. Also many people are not christian.

So religion is not a reason to ban abortion. Let's look at other religions for the fun of it:

There is no single Buddhist view concerning abortion. [2]

Some mainline Protestant denominations such as the Methodist Church, United Church of Christ, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, among others, are more permissive of abortion. [2]

Catholics, oriental orthxy, and the eastern Orthodox church no abortion. [2]

So even if the voters DO think religion is a reason (which is not) then I just proved the Christians are divided, and the Buddhists have no religious belief. I only have 1 more rebuttal so let's do more:

Some Hindu theologians and Brahma Kumaris believe personhood begins at three months and develops through to five months of gestation, possibly implying permitting abortion up to the third month and considering any abortion past the third month to be destruction of the soul's current incarnate body. [2]

pro early abortion

Classical Hindu texts strongly condemn abortion. [2]

But the article says they are for it in first trimester, and second, no third. mix

Although there are different opinions among Islamic scholars about when life begins and when abortion is permissible [2]
generally pro then

According to the British Broadcasting Corporation, "Judaism does not forbid abortion, but it does not permit abortion on demand. [2]


The Unitarian Universalist Church strongly supports abortion rights.


Although the Sikh code of conduct does not deal directly with abortion (or indeed many other bioethical issues), it is generally forbidden [2]

So even though religion IS NO REASON to ban abortion, if you think it is then well bad argument. But either way I showed religious are divided.

R2: Mental and spiritual

1. religion is no reason to defy the women the right to abortion, red herring arguments here
2. I proved many religions are split (even the Christians) so that argument varies on the view.

Sp this argument is

a. religion doesn't matter
b. religions are split so religious could be used both ways.

Also it sounds like you hint at abortion causing psychological problems, false:

Having an abortion does not increase a woman's chance of developing mental health problems [3]
The biggest study worldwide of the relationship between termination and mental wellbeing is published and concludes: "The best current evidence suggests that it makes no difference to a woman's mental health whether she chooses to have an abortion or to continue with the pregnancy." [3]

But it makes no difference to a woman’s state of mind whether she terminates or continues with the pregnancy, a report from the Royal College of Psychiatrists found.
Advertisement >>

The study authors said: “We should now shift our attention to the problems associated with unwanted pregnancy, not abortion.” [4]

Unwanted pregnancy causes illness not abortions.


I have refuted my opponents arguments and he has not refuted mine. I have more sources, and more credible ones. I urge you to vote pro, abortion has no bad proven effects and there are no reasons to ban it, and my opponent has not shown why it needs to be banned. I urge you to vote pro.

sources; [1] [2] [3] [4]


Abortion is strictly just not right.... you are kiling INNOCENT babies who have yet to live and have fun in life and you are just killing them for no good reason
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by schuunk 4 years ago
Angelo, isn't that obvious? They had to balance the states interests for regulating abortions and protecting paternal life and their mother's health. And, if you have children, is that what you were thinking when they were born? "My child might be the next mass murderer..." I hope not. But since you seem to be so pessimistic, maybe you do want a mass murderer for a child! In that case, you wouldn't want to murder your baby!
Posted by Angelo 4 years ago

every child born has the potential to be then next mass murderer, next.


If the government protects them from murder then why did roe v wade go pro choice?
Posted by Neonix 4 years ago
They obviously do, if the Government protects them from murder. In fact, you need a license to practice medicine to kill a baby in this country.
Posted by schuunk 4 years ago
Every child brought into this world has the potential to be the next Einstein.
Posted by Angelo 4 years ago

They have no legal right to life.
Posted by Neonix 4 years ago
Hey Angelo, you realize you've posted a lot of misinformation. You shouldn't win debates if you lie.
You stated that a fetus has no rights and is not recognized.

Have at it buddy.
Posted by Angelo 4 years ago
1st round acceptance
Posted by iholland95 4 years ago
What rule?
Posted by Angelo 4 years ago
you broke the rule.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by debateme 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ignored Pro's arguments and violated the only rule of the debate.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: First round was for acceptance, but Con argued anyway, and then _labled_ his second post, "first argument." Pro's arguments made sense. Con didn't refute them.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 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 Checkmark1 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: pro had more details and actually had more sources and logic. Also his arguments where stronger, con dropped almost every one of pro's points, and the last round was a total pro win. Pro won the debate no need for further explanation.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 4 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con basically gave up so Pro get's arguments and conduct.