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

Abortion is morally wrong

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2017 Category: Health
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 686 times Debate No: 101664
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)




From my point of view, abortion is morally wrong. I believe life begins at conception, and that a human life should be valued. Even in cases of sexual assault I believe no unborn child should be killed, as it wasn't their fault. I believe abortion should be outlawed and stigmatised. Also, I believe being anti abortion is not sexist, and that the fetus is not a part of the women's body. As well as this, I do not believe abortion is a 'reproductive right'.


Hello Jammie.

I do not condone abortion and would always attempt to dissuade some one who was considering abortion.

But there are two ways to look at everything. Conceptually or pragmatically.

For the purposes of this debate I will endeavour to be the pragmatist or realist. Concentrating my efforts on explaining the actual irrelevance of notions, such as morality and right or wrong.
Debate Round No. 1


Abortion is morally wrong for a number of reasons, and even certain circumstances do not legitimise it in my view.

We have to start with the question, is human life after birth worth anything?

If the answer is no, than abortion is not a concern to you, and you wouldn't care either way. If it is, and you are pro abortion, then you must reach a point either in development or circumstance where the destruction of the fetus is justified.

For example, if you consider an unborn fetus not worthy of life at all, then what about premature births? If the fetus is delivered prematurely, it is considered human if it survives, but during the same stage in development, and it is unborn, it could be susceptible for abortion.

Of course, this may not be your view, in which there are only two options remaining.

1. You believe human life begins at conception, and therefore agree with my view.

2. There is a cut-off point in terms of development as to what constitutes human life, and what is worthy of human rights.

If your answer is 2, there is a fundamental error in your reasoning. The only way to instate a law regarding development is to base it on a set time period on when abortions can occur, and anything after that point is murder. This is the problem with this solution:

In a hypothetical scenario, a fetus is close to it's termination deadline. Let's say it's April 8th. At 23:59 on April 7th, destroying that fetus is no more legal or morally wrong than plucking a hair from your head, as that fetus isn't recognised as a human life. So you could get the abortion on April 7th at 23:59, no problem. How is it right then, that exactly one minute later, that would be murder? How can one minute decide the legitimacy of human life? In that split second between 23:59 and 00:00, the entire moral and legal standing of that fetus goes from morally worthless to the highest value ever issued in our communities and legal system. Nothing special happens in that split second, nothing drastically changes withing the fetus that somehow makes it eligible for human life. So, if it is valued at 00:00 and then onwards forever, but is worthless before hand, it must also be valued before that, at conception at least.

The problem is with the whole 23:59 --> 00:00 scenario is that it is illogical to attribute worth to something over a millisecond where nothing changes.



We're back on track. That's good.

Once again, when viewed at a socio-conceptual level, there is nothing I would disagree with in your round 2 evidence.

Any issue relating to babies and young children is always emotive and relevant conceptual responses are easily retrieved from the brain's data bank.

I will now regard that key to this debate is "value of life" and not essentially morality. Two concepts that I could easily clump together and refute with realist logic.

But for now I will respond with some socio-conceptual rhetoric of my own.

What is life?

That wondrous, essential spark, that allows these amalgamated blobs of particulate matter to function and interact with the universe.

Life could have a greater meaning, or life could just be pure chance.

If you accept that life has a greater meaning. Then that should include all life, life that emanates from all beings.

If so, what about the lives of the millions of creatures we slaughter with impunity on a daily basis.

And, what if another human being was to murder your loved ones, or a terrorist was to kill and maim hundreds of your fellow countrymen.

Would you consider that the lives of the perpetrators of these crimes still had the same value as the lives of their victims?

Maybe you would. Maybe you are an absolute moralist and a vegan.

But if not, then couldn't your proposition be regarded as a tad cynical, arrogant or hypocritical.

Or in this instance, would you subscribe to an Orwellian notion:

All lives have value, but some lives have more value than others.

For me as a realist, based purely on the factual information that is presently available. I am compelled to accept that life and everything is pure chance.

Everything being: Time, space and all matter.

Ok. We perceive everything to be astoundingly amazing and wondrous.

But for now we must accept, that is just the way things are.

Therefore, ultimately the notions/concepts of value and morality, are merely notions and concepts.

Information acquired and stored, then assimilated and retrieved and eventually issued forth as intangible notions.

Intangible notions that have no real relevance to "everything".

Notions that can not be judged. because there is no greater authority to judge them.
Debate Round No. 2


I personally view all life as meaningful, yet some types of life are worth more than others. In my opinion human beings are intrinsically and infinitely more valuable than any other type of life, because we have souls. I believe this is because we are created by God, and given dominion over all the animal kingdom.

'If you accept that life has a greater meaning. Then that should include all life, life that emanates from all beings.
If so, what about the lives of the millions of creatures we slaughter with impunity on a daily basis.'

I accept all life has a greater meaning, yet like I said humans are infinitely more valuable than any other life. I believe it is okay to kill animals if their lives don't go to waste. A cow is worth the pleasure and nutritional benefits its meat gives to humans, as humans count for so much more than a cow. What I'm saying is that all life matters, but to varying degrees of importance.

As for the part about a human being murdering my loved ones and friends, their lives are still valuable,as human life is valuable regardless. However, if the only way to stop him was to murder him, that would be the choice I would take, as I am basically exchanging his life for more lives. In my opinion revenge is for God if He so chooses, but not for us.

'Or in this instance, would you subscribe to an Orwellian notion:

All lives have value, but some lives have more value than others.'

Yes, but instead of the Orwellian notion I am referring to cross species lives and not human lives. Human lives have more value than other lives, and other lives have varying amounts of value.

'Notions that can not be judged. because there is no greater authority to judge them.'

Yes there is, he's called God.


Souls and God.

Two hypothetical, supernatural manifestations that Pro uses to justify the greater importance of human life and therefore assert that "abortion is morally wrong".

I would contend that: the spark of life is the same in all beings and therefore of equal value.

If extinguishing the life of one being is not immoral then that principle must apply to all.

Nonetheless, none of the above is specifically relative to my standpoint. I use the above to emphasise the subjectivity and
consequent contradiction of pro's position.

My standpoint attempts to be more realistic and to view human social issues from a universal level.

That is to say. Do human actions have any greater significance above and beyond our earthbound predicament.

And of course, they do not.

There is no greater authority to judge our actions.

At best, gods are unproved theories. But are more likely to be conceptual fantasies.

So to use a god as reasoning in this debate is somewhat preposterous.

Does life have value?

When considered at a human social level. The answer to this question rests in the conscience of the individual.

Ultimately though, I think life has no value.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by cwt002 11 months ago

I am curious to hear some about your life some and living as though it has no value. There has to be a difference in living a life with no value and living a life with value but not sure what that difference is?
Posted by Jammie 11 months ago
Fair enough, but that is like trying to argue mathematics from an emotional standpoint. But as you wish, I will continue.
Posted by Sonofcharl 11 months ago
I couldn't agree more.

As far as I see it ,that's the whole point of debating.

One issue viewed from two different viewpoints.

You were taking a human, social and emotive stance.

Whereas I tend to view such issues from a realistic and pragmatic position.

What is the point of joining a debating website, if you are not prepared to accept that other people may have an opinion that differs with your own.
Posted by Jammie 11 months ago
If you're looking for logic, answer a debate like 'What is 2 plus 2?'

Abortion carries no logic, only human emotions. Abortion isn't a computer program, where there is a definitive answer. And the value of human is central to this debate, if you see no value in it, then why care at all?
Posted by Sonofcharl 11 months ago
"Abortion is morally wrong"

Forgive me for thinking morality was central to this discussion.

One would assume if you wished to discuss the value of human life, you would have presented an opening proposition such as: Human life has value.

Nonetheless I may well have accepted this challenge and would still have argued from a realist standpoint.

It's interesting how many DDO members would prefer not to have to deal with realist logic.
Posted by Jammie 11 months ago
Sonofcharl, you cannot argue for or against abortion from an amoral stand point, as the key point of debate is the value of human life and what constitutes as human life. Morality is central to this debate.
Posted by C_e_e 11 months ago
Jammie, I received the message that "Jammie is not accepting messages at this time," when I attempted to send you a message on this topic.
Would you please either change that setting, or go to my page on the site and click the "Send a message" link there?
I had some thoughts I wanted to discuss about this subject with you. But, doing so here, in the comment section might amount to seeming like you are debating multiple folks at once. That wouldn't be fair. And so, I'd prefer to converse with you through the message option.
Posted by Jammie 11 months ago
I don't think there should be any right to choose between keeping a baby and killing it, just as I think there shouldn't be any right to choose to commit murder or not.
Posted by John_C_1812 11 months ago
The reason behind the massive religious argument is due to the fact that the confession inside abortion makes it a form of satanic human sacrifice. Here again Gender Specific Amputation or Female Specific Amputation, G.S.A. or F.S.A. are not self-incriminating and are doing nothing more than describing witness accounts in an impartial way publicly. There is a certain amount of instigation taking place with the wording abortion. Most of it in the form of blame that is directed at 24 million woman and the United States Constitution.
Posted by John_C_1812 11 months ago
No Abortion is not morally wrong. It is legally wrong and not because of the c confession made to murder by the word abortion. Abortion is what it describes a confession and there may be justification. The issue is it can be used to ask for permission from the public in legislation.
No votes have been placed for this debate.