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

Abortion is a Form of Euthanasia, and Should Be Treated as Such

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,669 times Debate No: 11739
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




Abortion, or the intentional cancellation of a pregnancy, is a form of euthanasia, which is defined as causing or assisting in the painless death of another.

Legally and morally, these concepts should be synonymous and treated as such.


My opponent is making a straw man argument with how both concepts involve death True as that factor is death itself is not related to the morality of the situation. Natural death that is not assisted when people simply die of old age is not considered immoral either. Death is a natural part of life.
the factors involved that determine morality is consent. with abortion they have yet to figure out how to attain that, and will not be available until technology can communicate to embryo's, and people figure out how to explain the concept to such beings.
Euthanasia is not impeded by this consent factor at all. A patient can ask for euthanasia fulfilling consent.

Morally they don't necessarily equate, regardless of your position on either as consent for invocation of death is not present in both.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for joining my argument and posting your rebuttal.

I made no implication that I find euthanasia or abortion immoral on the basis that they both involve death. Death is an objective circumstance.

Euthanasia does indeed include assisted killings as a result of a request or consent by the patient. Nonetheless, your argument is more what one would call a "straw man argument." This is due to the fact that euthanasia also includes "mercy killings" that do not require the consent of the patient. An example of this is a comatose patient removed from life support. Of course, this decision is made by the person's closest kin, but so are abortions.

Yes, they hold many aspects in common. Enough that I feel they aught to be considered synonymous, both morally and legally.



I am sorry if my opponent thought I implied he gave a stance on the morality of abortion or euthanasia. I understand fully he has not claimed anything explicit about the morality of abortion or euthanasia yet in this debate. One would have to look at his profile to get any preconception of that. The only thing relevant in this debate is are the two similar enough to morally equate, not just morally approximate.

My opponent brings up there are extreme cases of Euthanasia that involve death without consent. I wonder if he would be prepared to defend that that form of Euthanasia is equally moral as Euthanasia with consent? But in any case he's resolution does say that 'abortion is a form...' so he has the freedom to argue for abortion only equating to this one kind of Euthanasia.
Even so that factors do not line up still. the Mercy killing hinges on the ending of ones suffering, what qualifies as suffering hear being allowed to be a loose term; ranging from constant physical pain to simply a very useless existence. For those that are comatose have no hope of ever being useful again, no potential. Unborn babies are not so hopeless though, and they certainly are not suffering. Now maybe my opponent would like to argue that they will suffer if allowed to live because its a cruel world, in which case I encourage my opponent to end his own misery first if that has any potential to justify 'mercy killing' of an unborn child.

If we are to listen to my opponent and equate all assisted non consented deaths in moral terms then we must be prepared to add executions by electric chair, hangings, KKK lynching, and the traditional illegal homicides, as many of these do not involve the consent of the individuals killed in these either. But I for one am not prepared to because I understand those are different situations despite the same circumstances involving consent and the initiation of death by a third parties hands. On could argue its immoral to cause the instantaneous death of a black person by lynching just because you raciest, while it might be moral to cause death of raciest cereal killer so that he can no longer kill African Americans, even if we proved his methods of murder were painless.
Debate Round No. 2


You stated: "The mercy killing hinges on the ending of one's suffering, what qualifies a suffering hear being allowed to be a loose term; ranging from constant physical pain to simply a very useless existence."

From this, I can infer that you are positing the argument that euthanasia is reserved for situations during which a sufferer must either endure incessant pain or a "useless existence." You are thus implying that abortion is not applied for the sake of relieving a child of incessant pain or a "useless existence."

My reply to this is that those very reasons are some of the most-cited rationalizations for the legalization of abortion. For example, the "practical" initiation of an abortion resulting from the knowledge that a child would be born disabled. As far as a "useless existence" is concerned, I'm pretty sure you're referring to a comatose individual, which I suppose would not be analogous to an unwanted child. But, I assure you that an unwanted child suffers a great deal more than a comatose individual does.

In fact, one of the major rationales cited for euthanasia of a comatose individual on life support is the immense expense. Children are highly expensive -- and finances are probably one of the primary reasons behind abortion.

You also stated that if one were to accept abortion as euthanasia, then one must accept a myriad of other types of murder to be euthanasia as well. Unfortunately, all that you listed does not seem conceivably painless, violating the definition.


My opponent mentions disabled children before saying he was responding to the 'useless existence' qualification for mercy killing, making me think he intended the disabled point to line up with physical pain but it sounds like an argument for that being a useless existence so I will have to respond to it that way, for I don't see how being born blind and any other random disability is necessarily painful.

Even if a child is born a vegetable it has it can still inspire hope among its parents as it lives on. many cures for diseases come out of research motivated by parents with children with that very diseases. Every disabled child that instilled this motivation in their parents or just empathetic third parties to further research in cures for disabilities or being able to adapt with them is serving a purpose.

An unwanted child does not equate in moral terms for justifying invoking death with comatose patients because even if they suffer who's situation would you rather be in? the child's or the comatose? the child's of course! because you can move, control your hands, control your legs, and CONTROL YOUR DESTINEY! presence of such fundamental hope in ones future would drastically make in impact on the morality of killing the child as opposed to an aged comatose patient without such hope.

You bring up life support expenses for the comatose and that children are expensive too. But for children's case the financial evaluation behind them gets more complicated than what you pay to keep them alive like for food and shelter. Its not unheard of for some to lie claiming have kids just so their fianc�s get easier from tax deductions. In businesses like farming for example the owner will not just have his wife pop out one expensive child but 12! all because having the free labor is part of how he runs his farm. as your child grows he will be able to help you in whatever work you are doing in some simple manner making your tasks easier. even if you own no business, once you've raised the child to dutifully clean your house while your at work, that is one of tedious task of daily living you can have off your mind and one ounce of your sanity you can keep when you worry about the dishes no more. Then there is the economic value of the day this investment really pays off, when your children support you as an old fart.
All of this is not even considering the value in a child outside of terms in raw tender. we could just want children to make us money so we can buy things that make us happy, but many enjoyable thing you can get with your child and skip the step of money. like playing ball with him/her or some other game you love. can you sing or play guitar? I bet your child can learn to do so too with you. Their is immense amount of potential for how a child can affect your life, but for a comatose patient there is very few kinds of future potential. because of this they cannot be considered to equate.

You seem to think many of the involuntary murder would be painful. this is not necessarily so. in a lynching, when the knot is done properly, it is quite painless as the death is instantaneous when the neck is snapped. or in death by electrical chair when a wet sponge is placed on the head before strapping them into the chair the electricity goes strait to the brain killing the victim immediately without them suffering. Some times in history if a person had it out for the individual being executed they would rig the noose so that the neck wouldn't snap and they would strangle instead or put a dry sponge on the forehead (like on The Green Mile) and painful suffering will happen but if handled properly their is a use for these executions that is painless. If the homicide murderer shoots you in the head your brain will be scrambled far faster than your pain receptors can reach it to tell you you are in pain. poison of course is another murder method that can be painless.
Debate Round No. 3


Your initial argument is that since congenital blindness, which is only one type of disability, may not be painful for that individual, a child born disabled could not possibly experience incessant pain. This is a logical fallacy known as dicto simpliciter -- a sweeping generalization. A terminal disease and malformed organs are indeed types of disabilities, and it could result in a child having a very short life (often months, weeks, or even days), and in excruciating pain the entire duration. Although you may be right, and a person born blind experiences no pain as a result of his or her disability, there are cases that may sound even more insufferable than any situation during which you feel it necessary to kill your friend (which could be a veritable form of euthanasia).

Your second argument is that a disabled child could provide an emotionally enriching experience. This is a supposition with no factual foundation. You also indicated that cures for their congenital disability may be discovered in their lifetime, which would erase any pain he or she may have experienced. This, likewise, is optimism, and not an assertion of fact. Furthermore, you stated that a child that is born disabled could not possibly be in a situation in which he or she cannot move. This, of course, is completely false. There are a myriad of congenital disabilities that will make you question your religion.

You then summarized your moral position on abortion. As far as having people decide against abortion and instead, raise a child, one should first consider whether someone who would make the decision to have an abortion should be having kids. Of course, someone may not be ready *yet*, and thus, ready *later*, but then, that person would no longer be the type of person to have an abortion if he or she were to become pregnant, would she?

The fact is that women know what abortions are, what they mean, and what they entail. They make this decision nonetheless, and for those who want to and don't, chances are, a tumultuous and difficult life would result. These are the facts, unless they wouldn't be considering having an abortion in the first place. The vast majority of women who get pregnant are overjoyed.

The expense in having children is not a gray area. For those who do not live on farms, and thus have more common living arrangements, children do not contribute in any meaningful way to the household income. Furthermore, they will not prefer to -- as they become progressively more expensive in their teenage years, they will only cull some of the more infuriating expenses such as impulse purchases and drugs with low-wage part-time jobs. Hundreds or thousands will still be spent on vacations, holidays, birthdays, large accomplishments, graduation, prom, and college. And that is only the basis. If you want your children to get a decent education, it's even worse. The list is endless -- children cost a fortune. Period.

As for the rest:

I can't believe you're actually trying to sell lynching off as though a bunch of happy white people simply skipped up to Jim the N*****, took his hand for a dance, and do-si-doed to the nearest tree. Then, they all sang a song as they tied the noose to the tree, gave ol' Jim a boost, and asked if it was too tight before they let him go, right?

The next thing you mentioned was the painlessness of death by electrocution. Here is a description of an execution by electric chair from

...the prisoner's eyeballs sometimes pop out and rest on [his] cheeks. The prisoner often defecates, urinates, and vomits blood and drool. The body turns bright red as its temperature rises, and the prisoner's flesh swells and his skin stretches to the point of breaking. Sometimes the prisoner catches fire....Witnesses hear a loud and sustained sound like bacon frying, and the sickly sweet smell of burning flesh permeates the chamber. (Ecenbarger, 1994).

Another description:

The current surges and is then turned off, at which time the body is seen to relax. The doctors wait a few seconds for the body to cool down and then check to see if the inmate's heart is still beating. If it is, another jolt is applied. This process continues until the prisoner is dead. The prisoner's hands often grip the chair and there may be violent movement of the limbs which can result in dislocation or fractures. The tissues swell. Defecation occurs. Steam or smoke rises and there is a smell of burning. (Hillman, 1992 and Weisberg, 1991)

You then cite a point-blank shot to the head and being poisoned. These are red herrings. They are irrelevant to the subject at hand -- and currently, we are discussing the fact that abortion is so much like euthanasia, it should be considered as such, morally and legally.

What you have not posited is your moral position on euthanasia, but from your arguments, I think it would be safe to assume that you believe that euthanasia is moral, while abortion is not. I find this interesting. The same arguments you presented in defense of keeping a disabled child could be applied to helping rather than assisting someone who is suicidal.

Ultimately, you have provided no clear reasoning behind your position. Instead, you defended minute points that may have some relevance to the basis of your argument. Although much of what you said could be applied to some situations that are applicable to the topic at hand, they are not substantive enough to establish why abortion should not be considered a form of euthanasia.

My position is that due to the similarities between euthanasia and abortion, they should be considered one and the same. The fact is that, if you were in a position where you were stranded in the middle of nowhere and your friend has terribly injured him or herself to the point that there is no chance whatsoever that he or she could survive, and he or she is in excruciating pain, you may decide to end his or her life in order to reduce the amount of pain that person will have to endure prior to the inevitable. Likewise, a person may be rendered comatose, and he or she may have no chance of ever waking up. His or her family may thus choose to remove him or her from life support, which would be another form of euthanasia. These sort of situations appear in abortion cases as well, such as when a child is stricken with a defect that will result in incredible pain throughout the child's entire short life, or a child that is born a narcoleptic quadriplegic. This leads to a substantiated argument that abortion should be considered synonymous with euthanasia.


First off, I am not defending KKK lynchings, and do not think in reality they take the courtesy to tie the noose knot in such a way that the neck is snapped insuring a painless death. But if from now on the courts treat non-consent-painless-death as okay these hateful people will have legal ground to defend themselves if they can prove what knot was used.
By all means my opponents descriptions of what happens to the body in a electrocution is true. But when a wet sponge is applied to the head the individual suffers through non of that because their brain is fried before their body goes through all of what my opponent described.

But as my opponent said there minute points,and have drifted this debate off topic. I understand if the voting audience cast vote for my opponent in arguments as I have not fully understood exactly what my opponents has been arguing until round four so I will only have rebuttal to this round that my opponent cannot respond to. He is not defending all abortions match up with euthanasia. But since they are cases with similar defenses for abortion to euthanasia it should be those that are considered justified. or at least as justified as euthanasia is.

How does one expect to argue against the 'special extreme cases' for two different practices? for in general abortions do not have the same set of contributing factors to the general contributing factors for the general cases of used euthanasia. But all these extreme situations like if you on an island and your friend is dieing and your diagnoses is they have no hope of recovery, and he hasn't even brought up the equally confusing if your on an island and your having a baby and don't know how to deliver it; they take different arguments for each case. all I can try to do is handle each in turn.

For starters I will refute my opponents assertion that it is not fact that a child disability motivates thier parents. I use this source to show that this a broader category to say that parents are aid cureing whatever ales their child than just becoming a scientist themselves. Trace Adkins works with a this particular charity because of his own child's allergies. when the wealthy decide to start giving to charities, you know what the only factors that really have any room to sway their choice in charity to donate too? the factors of if someone they know is affected by it. Their dad is a veteran, they donate to the veteran cause; is the celeb himself destined to remain in a wheel chair? they start the christever reeves foundation
Let us say the next time a celeb has to choose a charity to support on the apprentice, if he/she has a child, or even a cousin or nephew/niece or aunt/uncle, ect, ect that has that very deseses that my opponent implied exist in the last round but failed to source (guess he was uncomfortable looking them up cause they make him question his religion). that charity research would get attaintion because of that connection.
I don't remember asserting that a cure would be found in the lifetime of the child because I don't find that relevant, but your general problem about optimism over fact confuses me; talking about these extreme situations is not fact either but cynical or pessimistic. the discussion is all about the possibilities yet to happen, not the fact of what inevitably must happen.

My opponents point about the expense of children did not directly address any of mine, only provide more extreme situations that are possible, but not unavoidable. Teenagers reading it ought to be offended by his slur against their fiscal habits with 'impulse' buy's and drugs. I went through my teenage years with neither of those. my opponent has a strange definition of the term 'fact' hear. None of this refutes the non-leagle tender value I brought up of having children nor the fact that these kids can take care of you when your old.

Audience, if you feel that the extreme cases that are similar like when 'your stranded on an Island' or 'theirs enough air for 2 people for 1 hour and 2 hours for one person' kind of situations can make overall the issues of abortion and euthanasia the same issue, then vote PRO. If you recognize that overall issue behind abortion is 'its my choice' and that euthanasia is not vote CON.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Ren 5 years ago

Not that I'm presenting any sort of position on this, don't you think this is the wrong place for such an extensive conversation?
Posted by gavin.ogden 5 years ago
What is the problem with euthanasia?
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
My position on euthinasia is Con also, and I do use the same arguments against assisting suicide as the disabled child but I shouldnt say that in the debate cause its abrasive to the CON side.
Overall my resolve for being against abortion is stronger than being against euthinasia

I tried to not argue for or against either at the start, but then I realized how can argue them different without showing something that makes one okay to not make the other okay? Im not sure their is a way to argue their both wrong but for different reasons.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Marauder 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Vote Placed by KirstinKate 6 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07