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

Abortion is morally wrong

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: 1/14/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,720 times Debate No: 68325
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (1)




My argument is that abortion is morally wrong irrespective of religion.

This debate open to anyone, both male and female.

This first round is just for acceptance.


I'd be happy to debate with you, Jadeus.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you Impartial for accepting my challenge.

I would like to start by saying that I'm not advocating any law making regarding abortion or women's reproduction. This is an argument on morality.

My belief that abortion is morally wrong comes from my belief that the unborn fetus is a human being. Most abortions take place during the first trimester of the pregnancy because most people think that the fetus is not yet full developed. But I have to ask, at what point will the fetus be full developed? Is it when the limbs are grown, or when the eyes come out? Well at 8 weeks (2 months), the baby is showing signs of limbs and eyes. It starts to develop breathing tubes for it's lungs. Although you can't know the sex of the fetus, it shows signs of being a human being.

Also, even though it is not yet a human being, does that give the woman the right to kill it just because she doesn't want it. We don't kill dogs just because we don't want them, instead we give them to animal shelters. Why can't they just give the child up for adoption if the know they can't raise them. There are a lot of childless people out there that are looking for children and there women that kill their unborn children just because they don't want them.

I've heard the argument that women abort their children because it might be a health risk, but statistically that group of women account for about 7% of women that do abortion. <1% of women that commit abortion do it because of rape or incest. The rest, about 92%, do it just because they don't want to take care of the child.

Look, I have no problem with people doing abortion because giving birth might endanger the life of the child or mother. That's fine because it wasn't the woman's fault that the child had complications during the pregnancy. This is a different case from aborting a child just because he or she is disabled. People can live with disability.

As for rape victims, I still think abortion is wrong. This might seem harsh but the truth is that if you kill your child just because you were raped, you are worse than the rapist. Why? Because you are taking the life of an innocent human being and you value money more than the life of a child. Don't believe me? Just imagine that something happens in the world and if you get raped, you automatically get a million dollars. Tell me, would you say "Oh well keeping this money would constantly remind me of the rape. I should just burn it up." No one would do that. They would happily take the million dollars and do what they want to do with it, yet they are willing to take the life of their unborn child that is worth much more than that million dollars.

Thanks for reading my argument, as badly written as it is. I'm waiting for a response from my contender. Thank you.


Classing an unborn foetus as a human being is a common argument from the anti-abortion movement. I have always found it to be somewhat emotionally driven but then that is understandable.

You asked "at what point will the fetus be full developed?" If there are no complications during pregnancy and labour, a human being will be born regardless of what stage in the pregnancy you refer to. I therefore ask you, what is the significance of a foetus being developed or not? Because it resembles a person? Forgive me for being so crude but every time a fertile man has an orgasm and doesn"t impregnate a woman, is he being immoral? His semen contains millions of living beings with the potential of creating at least one human being. If you approach this objectively, there is no difference between a fertilised egg in a healthy woman and a foetus at 8 weeks because time is constant, the outcome is still the same, a baby is born.

Equally, is it immoral for a woman not to have as many children as she can in her lifetime, denying her eggs the ability to harbour new life? Is that like killing a child? No, it clearly isn"t. There is no social norm in civilised society that makes women optimise the number of children they can have. It's totally different to murder.

Let me suggest you consider the role of contraception in this debate. On millions, if not billions of occasions, contraception has successfully prevented children from being born. It is used in developed and secular countries because of it"s practical, social and moral benefits. Just as abortion is. Using anti-abortion logic, a condom is potentially a death sentence for an unborn child. That"s how moral concerns over abortion come across.

You also asked "even though it is not yet a human being, does that give the woman the right to kill it just because she doesn't want it." From a moral standpoint again, women"s rights are vital for civilised society and I value them greatly, as I"m sure you do too. This includes the right to have an abortion before a certain number of weeks. Frankly, I think giving women this choice must be prioritised over the wishes of people such as yourself. Just as people have the choice to use contraception and are encouraged to do so.

I would hesitate to compare orphans to dogs so I won"t say any more on that.

As for disability, one could say that society has a moral obligation to allow parents to make the choice to abort. Many developing countries already practice that to some degree. However the morality of the following decision is open to judgement separately.

It is utterly absurd, the idea that rape victims must give birth to their rapist"s children, on moral grounds. What a sickening thought. That alone is enough to quash the argument that abortion is immoral. I"m fortunate enough to live in a country that doesn"t force such an injustice upon these women.

I"m fascinated to know what you think about my response.
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for your timely response.

By the way, unless you can prove that the fetus is not a human being, my argument is still valid.

The reason for my question is the fact that it has no significance to the life of the fetus, yet that's why people think that it is okay to abort a baby during the first trimester of a pregnancy and not the second or third. It is still a baby regardless of not being fully developed. Why? Because a lot of people where not fully developed when they were born, does that give us the right to kill them because the are not a "fully developed" human being. By the way, regarding your case of semen, the semen is just semen and is not a human being. Being fused with a human egg causes some kind of stuff to occur that results in a human being. The sperm has the "potential" of becoming a human being, that does not make it a human being. Why? Because during intercourse, millions of sperm is released into the woman's body. Only the ones that fuse with eggs become human beings. Sperm on it's own doesn't result in a human being that is why you don't see the woman giving birth to millions of babies. If you don't agree with this, why don't you go ahead to state what makes a fetus a baby? Being born?

I never said that it is immoral for you to have limited number of babies or no baby at all. Like I said earlier, only a fertilized egg is considered a human being, and egg on its own is not a human being and if a woman removes her ovaries, it is not an abortion because no baby has been killed.

I greatly value women's rights because I am one, but there are limitations to rights. In America, we have the right to freedom of speech as stated in the First Amendment, but that doesn't give us the right to hate speech (eg Donald Sterling). There are limitations on rights. Just because a woman has the right to her body, doesn't give her the right to kill her baby just because she can't raise it or because it would remind her of something bad. This is because when she gets pregnant, it is no longer her, but her and her baby. The right to abortion is like saying that women have the right to kill their born baby if they can no longer care for them, after all it is their babies and they kept them in their body for months.

I didn't compare orphans to dogs, I said that if you kill a dog, you could be arrested, yet people do that to unborn babies and the authorities would not bat an eyelid.

"As for disability, one could say that society has a moral obligation to allow parents to make the choice to abort."

Seriously?!!!!!!!! Are you in your right senses right now?!! You would give parents the right to kill their child (both unborn and born) just because they have a disability? Wow!

By the way, just because developing countries practice it, it is good. I'm from a developing country and I still think it is immoral.

Why do you assume that the child is only the rapist's child. It is the woman's child too. Children are blessings and we are wrong to reinforce the idea that the child is the rapist's ONLY. Ever since the rapist turned his back on the woman, he denied being the father of the child, thereby making the woman the sole parent and responsibility of child. Like I said, if that woman receives one million dollars, she would jump in joy. She would not cry when she receives the money and say "Why did I receive this? Now I would be constantly reminded of the rape." Yet when she gets a child, who is worth more than that money, she would just kill the child without batting an eye. Right. Who is harsher? The rapist or the murderer?

Unborn children have as much life to life as born children. A fertilized egg is the same as an 8 week fetus because the are one thing, a human being.


You"re very welcome.

There is no proof either way, it is entirely subjective, as are both our positions on the question of whether a fertilised egg or a foetus are human beings.

I think the psychological impact an ultrasound scan has on someone when they see the resemblance of a foetus to a baby is why it is controversial in some countries. This is why I refer to your argument as emotionally driven because you see the similarity to a baby and therefore latch onto the idea that it"s a baby. As I"ve said, it"s an opinion so I don"t expect to be able to persuade you otherwise.

In response to your criticism of the example I gave. It could be argued that a healthy foetus has just as much "potential" of becoming a human being as a healthy fertilised egg. Just as healthy semen has the potential of fertilising an egg. I"m well aware of how reproduction works.

I"d urge you to take more of an objective approach. In the UK, abortions are legal up to 24 weeks. This is because we are pro choice. It gives a woman and her partner enough time to make the right decision for them and their potential family. Asking when a foetus becomes a baby, will always invoke an emotional response. The all important "potential" that you speak of is removed by contraception. Yet you will not say whether or not it is immoral. If the potential of sperm or indeed an egg, to make a human being, isn"t valid, why is the potential of a fertilised egg or foetus valid. The debate isn"t about that though, it"s about giving women the right to choose. 24 weeks is more than long enough to make the very difficult decision whether or not to have an abortion. When you look at it like this, choice wins every time in a civilised society. As a woman, I would have thought you"d agree.

Sure, rights have their limitations. Why should a woman, who may have had an accidental pregnancy due to a broken condom, be forced to have the baby? Put yourself in her shoes. How would you feel if you and your partner didn"t have the means to provide for it? A baby would be born and the whole family would suffer because of it. A baby isn"t a commodity that should be born because its mother was forced into it. I think every baby should be born into a family at the right time and under the best possible circumstances for that family. Not because a condom broke or someone got raped. This is very important.

I was shocked to read what you said about disability but soon realised you hadn"t understood the following sentence. Maybe I should have articulated my point better so I apologise for that. I"ll clarify. Parents must have the choice to have an abortion before a certain deadline. Choosing to abort a foetus because it has a big nose, or one leg or no eyesight, is a separate moral issue. One that I did not comment on as I hope you appreciate now.

In developing countries, contraception and abortion can help improve infant mortality rates. I"d invite you question the morality of that.

It takes two to tango as they say. The child in that example would be both the rapist"s and the victim"s, of course. I wonder what the child would think, to know that they have been born into such a family, or lack thereof. Not to mention how the mother feels about that. I think to condemn them to such an eventuality is positively wicked, don"t you?

The pro choice position actually considers the welfare of children because it takes into the consideration the ability of a family to bring them up when they intend to, therefore ensuring the best possible upbringing. I give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you care about the wellbeing of children. I"d therefore be interested to understand why you still have reservations about giving a family the choice to bring up a child when they are ready, so they can do so to the best of their ability, unless you"ve changed your mind.
Debate Round No. 3


I'm sorry for my late response.

The first statement you made just contradicted your whole argument. Just because there is no proof that a fetus is a human being means that we should kill it? Ok, what if a research is conducted and we find out that a fetus is a human being, that means that America has been killing about a million human beings every year. That's mass infanticide at its greatest. By the way, the fact that a fetus grow into the humans that we see today is fact that it is a human being. There is no other thing in the entire world that can grow into a human being. A fetus is different from a sperm or an egg because instead of just having the potential to have life, it is already life because it can grow and feed (which are characteristics of all living things). A sperm and egg cannot grow.

Just because something has the "potential" of becoming something, doesn't mean that it will become that thing. For example, you have the "potential" to get a million dollars the next second but that doesn't mean that you would.

"Asking when a fetus becomes a baby will always invoke an emotional response."
Exactly what I'm looking for! An emotion! Whether you like it or not, everything we do in life has to do with our emotion. Why do you go to college? Because you want to get a good job that you love which makes you happy. You want to succeed because it makes you happy. Everything we do involves emotion. If we remove emotion from important subjects, we do not make good decisions.

Giving a woman the right to choose isn't the same as giving a woman the right to take a life. Just because she is the mother doesn't give her the right to kill her child just because she can't take care of it ( that's the major reason why women commit abortion). As a woman, I know very well the importance of women's rights, but like I said earlier, there are limits to rights. That's why you try to save a suicidal person if he tries to kill himself, despite the fact that he has full right to his body. That's the same with women and pregnancy. Giving a woman the right to her own body, doesn't give her the right to hurt a part of her body, or the life growing h=in her body.

"Why should a woman, who may have had an accidental pregnancy due to a broken condom, be forced to have the baby? Put yourself in her shoes."

Why are you using emotional tactics now Con? I thought you were against that.
I'm an advocate for abstinence till marriage, that's why even if that happens, I would give birth to the child because the child would be in a stable family. But if I indulge myself in sexual experiences before I get married and get pregnant due t a broken condom, then I would still give birth to the child and I encourage women to do the same. Why? Children are blessings. Simple. If you are not able to take care of a child, then you shouldn't be having sex then, knowing the consequences of a wrong move. But even if I know the consequences and still indulge, I would put the child up for adoption. There are a lot of couples struggling with infertility or just want another child.

I agree that contraception can help improve infant mortality rates by preventing pregnancies for occurring, but I don't understand how killing already living children reduces infant mortality rates. In fact, it does the opposite. Remember, you still haven't given a clear answer to when a fetus becomes a baby.

" The child in that example would be both the rapist"s and the victim"s, of course. I wonder what the child would think, to know that they have been born into such a family, or lack thereof. Not to mention how the mother feels about that. I think to condemn them to such an eventuality is positively wicked, don"t you?"

You said that the child is the rapist's and the victim's right? I agree, BIOLOGICALLY. Being a father isn't about making a woman pregnant, it has to do with the process of raising that child and being emotionally available for you child.
What of the child? Since you always tell me to put myself in the shoes of others, let me tell you to do that too. As for the child, if you can't love him or her, put him up for adoption instead of killing them because abortion isn't a one day experience.

Pro-choice isn't the same thing as pro-abortion. They are two different things all together. I'm pro-choice too because I believe in our right to choose things THAT AFFECT OURSELVES ONLY. Pro-abortion isn't pro-choice because you are removing the rights of the fetus or baby to live. Abortion doesn't take the child into consideration, it just takes the parent's into consideration whether they are willing to accommodate this "burden" into their planned out lives. Contrary to popular opinion, I'm not against giving a family a choice on when or whether they want to raise a child, I'm just against the killing of innocent children that are already alive. I also care about children that's why I advocate their rights to life like any human being should.

Abortion is not just something that happens in just one day and it is over. During pregnancy, the body changes. A lot of hormones are released and the woman sees "baby" everywhere. Immediately after abortion, these changes immediately stop. That can be traumatic.

Abortion takes the life of innocent children whether we like it or not. More than 90% of abortions are used as a form of birth control. That's just cruel, killing a child just because he or she would "inconvenience" you.

A unborn child has the right to life, and taking that right away without consent is a crime.


Impartial forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jadeus 3 years ago
@Impartial: It was nice debating with you too.
Posted by Jadeus 3 years ago
@Impartial: Thank you.
Posted by Impartial 3 years ago
Eh? I thought I had over two days to respond. Just got back from a business trip and lost track of time.

@Jadeus, I apologise for not making my final comment. Oh well. It was nice debating with you nonetheless and it'll be interesting to see the results.
Posted by Jadeus 3 years ago
@Impartial: Thank you.
Posted by Impartial 3 years ago
@Jadeus, all credit to you for not drawing upon religion in the debate. I admire that.
Posted by Impartial 3 years ago
@Esiar, so using that logic, all contraception is bad because it prevents children from being born...

It's 2015, we don't think like that anymore.
Posted by Esiar 3 years ago
It isn't exactly human, but you're still preventing it from being one.
Posted by ZenoCitium 3 years ago
@Jadeus: That is understandibly difficult. However, there are lots of ethical models out there, distinct from any religion.
Posted by Jadeus 3 years ago
ZenoCitium, you are right. I should have established morality. But I didn't do it because I wanted to see how I could argue my point without having to draw on my religion and that is becoming difficult for me.
Posted by ZenoCitium 3 years ago
@tomlangford: I do think some of those statements are lacking facts or misinterpreting them anyway. I can debate further but not in this section.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Philocat 3 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro because of Con's forfeiture, although Con's spelling was better. Overall, Pro made better arguments. She successfully upheld her premise that a foetus is a human being. Con misrepresented Pro's arguments as being about potential humanity in order to liken sperm cells to foetuses. However, this argument was irrelevant because Pro argued that foetuses weren't just potential human life, but actual human life. Con goes on to argue that the definition of a human being is subjective, but he does not support this claim. 'Human' actually has an objective biological definition. All Con's further arguments were syllogisms - they were valid arguments but they were based on the premise that a foetus is only a potential human being and not an actual human being. Pro argues validly that there is a fundamental difference between sperm and foetuses. Finally, Con does not provide evidence that a right to an abortion is contained under a right to choice.