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

Abortion is a moral for women under the age of twenty one.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 5/1/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,118 times Debate No: 23319
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




First round is accepting.
This shall be run like a normal LD Debate
Round 2) Constructive with neg's first rebuttle at end of constructive
Round 3) Aff and Neg rebuttle
Round 4) Aff's final rebuttle, Neg cannot rebut anything. They must either just say vote neg, or not say anything.

Resolved: Abortion is a moral for women under the age of twenty one.


I accept, although I believe it's unfair for the first round to be accepting, and yet as the contender I cannot post a final argument. This clearly gives you an unfair advantage since you are allowed to post more arguments than me. Although I can't force you since you made the rules, I request to be allowed to post in Round 4.

I will be arguing that abortion is immoral whether you're over or under 21.
Debate Round No. 1


Resolved: Abortion is a morally permissible tool for women under the age of twenty one.

Abortion: The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy

Morally Permissible: Meets a baseline requirement for morality. In other words, the act may not be the best course of action, but is simply not immoral.
Today I am going to value utilitarianism as causing the most good in the world should be the inherent goal of any tool that affects human life. We should judge what causes the most good by the quality of life.

It is important to properly understand the resolution: It states that abortion is immoral for those over the age of twenty one.
This is important to realize as at the age of 21, the judgmental portion of the human brain is almost done developing and therefore the adult should have proper judgment before putting herself into a situation where an abortion would be required unless in a situation where wrong was done to her (I.E rape).
Abortion would prevent life from being put into a bad situation.
Imagine this, a sixteen year old just got pregnant. She is failing most of her classes and has grim prospects of ever achieving a life on her own (without help from an agency). If the baby were to be put into a poor life like this, would it be worth it? Is it moral to put someone into a bad situation? I think not. I believe that these people should not be allowed to have children unless they are in a special situation where care will be provided. In most situations, it is not. Now some may say then to put the baby up for adoption yet most mothers will not (less than 3% of white unmarried women and less than 2% of black unmarried women).
Finally, it is important to realize that most abortions take place in the first trimester in which a child has no cognitive thoughts therefore is not civilized and is not even considered a moral agent. Women have the rights to their bodies. Vote Aff


Since Pro hasn't replied to my comment (in the comments section), I assume he has conceded to my request. Therefore, the debate will work like how I proposed:

Round 2: Pro's and Con's opening arguments; I cannot rebut Pro's opening in this round.
Round 3: Pro and Con rebut each other's opening arguments.
Round 4: We rebut each other's R3 arguments, and conclude. I cannot rebut Pro's final argument in Round 4.

So remember, my following arguments are not related to Pro's opening. Don't criticize me because I didn't cover most of Pro's points.

My opening:
Since you put "a" before "moral" in the resolution, it appears that you are talking about the noun. The complete definitions of the noun "moral" are:

1. The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
2. A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.

3. morals: Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.

These definitions don't make sense in your resolution. If it's what you meant, you're saying that abortion sets a good example for people under 21, which of course isn't necessarily true. Thus, I will have to assume that you meant "moral," not "a moral."

The definitions for the adjective are:
1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

So basically, the definition of moral is "the right thing to do - not wrong." Obviously, humans have a hard time agreeing on what's right and wrong, so it's impossible to argue for a fact that abortion under 21 is moral. Moral does not mean "practical" or "logical." In this situation, morality has to do with human life, and whether or not abortion is murder. If abortion is in fact murder, then it doesn't matter what your age is. Abortion is murder no matter what, whether you're over or under 21. Unborn babies counting as humans has nothing to do with the mother's age. And if abortion was moral, then it should be legal no matter what your age is.

For people that agree with the resolution, I'm guessing your viewpoint is something like "But life would be so difficult for a pregnant 14 year old." or "The baby would be in such a horrible situation, he/she would be better off dead." First of all, that doesn't change whether or not abortion is moral. Second, that's not necessarily true. Many organizations that are against abortion are happy to help in any way they can to either give the child to a family immediately after birth, or give you everything you need to help raise the child (if you want). So not only does this viewpoint not correspond to the resolution, but it's not a significant issue.

Allow me to give an analogy about slaves. I find it interesting that once America got rid of racism, a new issue came up that like slavery, made a type of human inferior to other humans: abortion.

So, let's say that for some reason, enslaving black people is still legal. Slavery is a controversial subject, split evenly in half. Some say that slavery should be completely abolished. Others say that without slaves, they wouldn't be able to continue in life. Many say that individuals should be allowed to "choose" whether or not they can own slaves. And some people, including Pro, say that slavery should be only be legal if the owner is above 21. Otherwise, slavery is immoral and you can't own one. I think most can agree that the only legitimate argument here is that slavery should be completely abolished. It doesn't make sense for Negroes to count as humans if the owner is under 21, but that Negroes don't count if the owner is above 21. If something is human, then it's human, regardless of someone else's age.
Debate Round No. 2


Purlstone forfeited this round.


Since Pro forfeited, I will now rebut his opening argument.

Morally permissible:
Your idea of what the phrase "morally permissible" means is confusing. I had to read it several times to figure out what you meant. Did you make up this definition? Morality isn't about what you can get away with. Even if it was, do you really think it's morally permissible to have an abortion JUST because you're under 21? Sure, a bad situation is more likely if you're under 21, but there is no reason to have an abortion simply because you're under 21. There are plenty of situations (or even all depending on your views) where abortion isn't necessary even if you are under 21. It is up to you to prove that abortion is ALWAYS moral if you're under 21.

Anyway, your resolution never said morally permissible. It said that abortion is moral (or "a moral"), but it didn't say morally permissible. There's a difference.

For your next point, you have given no sources showing that the judgmental part of the brain is finished around 21. In fact, I looked this up, and your "judgmental portion of the brain" idea doesn't even appear to exist. Personally, I believe people are capable of deciding for themselves much earlier than that. Isn't a 16 year old capable of being responsible enough? I don't see why not.

Also, even if the judgment section actually does finish around 21, wouldn't it make more sense for abortion ABOVE 21 to be legal and below to be illegal? This would prevent 16 year olds from making bad moral decisions concerning abortion that they couldn't possibly understand at their age (according to you), and they could instead give the child up for adoption. Most importantly, this would teach kids to be more responsible, and they will hopefully carry on these responsibilities into their adulthood.

Abortion prevents life from being put into a bad situation... by killing it instead? That makes no sense. Do you think that the baby is reincarnated into a good situation or something? Once something's dead, it's dead. It has lost its chance at life. If the mother had chosen to let it live, do you honestly think that the child in its overall life would wish he was dead? Being alive is almost always better then being dead, even if you are in a bad situation. Hardly anyone would walk up to their mom and say "I wish you had aborted me." This argument is very weak and very wrong.

So, is it moral to put a child in a bad situation? Compared to the alternative, absolutely.

Also, you can't make it illegal for someone to have a child. That would of course go strongly against many people's morals and beliefs (pro-lifers especially).

The amount of people that give up their kids for adoption is irrelevant. The point is that more people should do this instead of abortion, not how many people currently do it.

Lastly, there is no legitimate reason to say that a baby doesn't count as a human just because it's in the first trimester. The baby grows throughout the pregnancy without a significant point where it can be marked as human, other than conception. Thus, humans should be considered human at conception. Also, if you use this as one of your arguments and you're saying abortion is moral in the first trimester, shouldn't it also be moral for those over 21? Your argument isn't consistent.

Since Pro forfeited this round, he can of course rebut all previous arguments, as well as conclude. Don't forfeit.
Debate Round No. 3


Purlstone forfeited this round.



Well, now the debate's over. Pro made one post, which I rebuted, and for the rest of the time he forfeited by letting the time run out. I think the winner is clear. Remember when you're voting that you're no supposed to vote for who you agree with. Vote for who debated the best.

Since I've already rebutted and everything, I have nothing else to say. I guess I'm not arguing in the final round after all.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by martianshark 4 years ago
I'm not altering it, we agreed to this before Round 2.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
You can't alter the resolution in round 2; that is bad form.
Posted by martianshark 4 years ago
No, that doesn't make sense. If you are allowed to argue in Round 4, I should be allowed to as well. Since you started the debate, the contender usually gets the last word. In this situation, you get to both start off and end the debate, which gives you three rounds while I only get two. What would be fair is both me and you opening our own separate arguments. Then we would rebut each other's opening arguments, and then both of us would conclude with no rebuttal in the final round. Thus, we both have the same amount of arguments and the same amount of rebuttals.
Posted by Purlstone 4 years ago
The reason why you don't go last is because then you'll have more rebuttle time. I followed the lincon and douglas debate setup. My case with no rebuttle then your case AND YOUR FIRST REBUTTLE go in round 2 then Ar1 and nr2 and finally ar2. If you went last you'd have three rebuttle times verses aff's 2. Make Sense?
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
Posted by Purlstone 4 years ago
Nope, I am saying that woman under 21 should be able to get abortions but not those older
Posted by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
you mean amoral, right?
Posted by Purlstone 4 years ago
Sure, why not? It is not outside the scope of the resolution so of course :D
Posted by SayWhat 4 years ago
Can I take the position that abortion is moral for anyone?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheDiabolicDebater 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 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: FF'd and closed account