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

Abortion is okay.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/14/2014 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 771 times Debate No: 58952
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




There are several arguments throughout the world pertaining to thoughts about abortion. Many people say it's okay and many people say it isn't. Abortion is killing. No matter at which point in the pregnancy abortion takes place you are still taking away someone's life. People try to argue the fact that if the woman decides on abortion soon enough then it is okay due to the fact that the "baby" is not even a fetus yet. However, it is still a ball of cells which grows into a fetus or baby. Sucking out that ball of cells is equivalent to sucking out a fetus because by taking it out, you are destroying the potential of a child's life.


Thank you, Con. Since this debate is only two rounds, I'll get right into things with a constructive, and then I will rebut Con's argument.


My constructive will focus upon the idea that a fetus is not a human being, and, therefore, is not subject to the same rights and protections as humans are. If this is the case, than abortion should be permissible and legal.

The reason this is the case can be seen in the definition of a person as a subject of rights and duties, as human. To be human, one has to have cognitive abilities, that is, sentience [3] [4]. This ability to have sentience, to reason, is the result of evolution, which caused humans to develop a frontal cortex to allow for sentience, reason, thoughts, emotions, etc. A fetus, before the point of viability (which is the current standard), does not have this.

At 3 weeks fetal development, for example, a fetus barely has arms or legs, and certainly does not have a developed brain [5]. The absence of this cognitive ability is clearly acceptable grounds for termination, as a human being has not formed yet. We see this standard come into play when we allow for the unplugging of braindead patients on life support. They have lost all cognitive ability, their brain is not functioning, and, as a result, they lose derivative right to life claims. Thus, they can be unplugged, terminating their existence, though, by that time, they are already dead.

If we similarly apply this standard, we can clearly see that a fetus does not have the same rights claims that human beings do because they lack sentience and cognitive abilities that rights are designed to protect in the first place. Thus, since I have demonstrated that a fetus is not a person, abortion, at least in some instances, is permissible.


It is never entirely clear what Con is trying to argue. Con repeatedly claims that a fetus is a person, or at least will be, and, therefore, terminating a fetus is wrong.

However, Con's argument is all assertion, without any argumentation or sourcing. We never get an argument for why a fetus is a human being; rather, the necessity to call a fetus a POTENTIAL human being is the critical distinction. I concede that a fetus, provided nothing goes awry in its development, will become a human at some point. However, as a fetus, it is (before the point of viability) a ball of cells with no cognitive ability. Destroying potential is certainly, in no way, equivalent to destroying an actual life.

A seed is not a plant, an egg is not a chicken, and a fetus is not a human being. This is simple, as I have demonstrated, and we have seen no real argument to the contrary.

Thank you. If I get a more comprehensive argument, I shall elaborate upon these points further. Vote Pro.

Debate Round No. 1


My argument is not whether or not this action should or should not be legal, I believe that is strictly the mothers choice. However, i do argue that it is potentially wrong.

" Development of an embryo begins at stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes and oocyte and together form a zygote." - Life Before Birth. 2nd edition. (Direct quote. I am not claiming its my own words)
The life of a human being begins at conception . To say that life does not begin as a mans sperm and woman's egg meet is quite irrational. The importance of this does not lay in the size or weight , however in it's own essence. (Human.) This ball of Cells that has been produced by man and woman has a unique genetic pattern that will form into a human being.

If a mother does not want to keep her child then she can just as simply put the child up for adoption after she has given birth rather than killing the baby before it has the chance to life a normal life with parents that are looking for a child. Even if a woman is raped and cannot handle the stress of having a child at that moment, it would be selfish to terminate the unborn child's life just to be able to not suffer through 9 months of pregnancy. As humans, we know that we cannot erase a tragedy with another tragedy which is exactly what an abortion is. A tragedy. You cannot overcome being raped by killing the unborn child you were blessed with.

Also, throughout the pregnancy the woman has a chance to change her mind about the baby and whether or not she would like to keep him or her. If the mother decides on an abortion without giving much thought on it she may regret the decision a few months later.

The procedure itself is very risky. has composed a list of the 347+ women who have died from this costly procedure since 1973. Also, it is proven that women who go through with an induced abortion are at a higher risk for breast cancer by 50%.

Not only can it harm the woman physically, it can also harm her mentally and emotionally.


Note that Con has not responded to the essence of my argument. Extend these through.

Life begins at conception.

Development may begin at conception, but that does not mean that a human life forms at conception. I have argued that human beings have cognitive abilities; lack of these is grounds for morally acceptable termination. My example of the unplugging of the braindead patient demonstrates this. Con has resorted to assertion, without actually proving that a full human life, subject to all necessary rights and protections, begins at conception. Again, an egg is not a chicken, a seed is not a plant, a fetus is not a human life. It's essence is irrelevant.


Firstly, a woman does not consent to a child from rape. An abortion merely removes the unwanted visitor; death is a side-effect for which a woman should not be held responsible. We see that human beings have a very strong right to autonomy, which pregnancy from rape abrogates. A woman should be able to control what happens to her body, just as I should not have to house a hungry, homeless burglar who enters my house against my will.

Secondly, forcing a woman to give birth to a baby resulting from rape would cause more emotional harm, such as PTSD, depression, etc. [1]. Extended exposure to the rape's physical consequences could result in even worse emotional results, perhaps even higher rates of suicide than already exist [1].

Abortion is emotionally and physically harmful.

This is untrue.

Over 90% of women feel relieved after an abortion, and over 80% felt that it was the right decision for them, even with some negative emotions involved [2]. Therefore, it appears that abortion, rather than being an emotional stress, is actually an emotional relief.

Moreover, abortion is a safe procedure. Less than .5% of women have serious complications from an abortion [3], which is very low for a medical procedure. Compare this to the 94.1% complication rate from pregnancy, including an over 15% serious complication rate [4]. The fact that only 347 women have died from abortion, compared to over 10,000 women from pregnancy [4], is telling. The source for the breast cancer link is a biased one; most scientists finding there to be no causal link [5].


I have demonstrated that a fetus is not a human being, and, therefore, temination of the fetus is not immoral. I have argued that women have no duty to accomodate a pregnancy resulting from rape. I have shown that abortion is a safe procedure, medically preferable to pregnancy. Meanwhile, Con has argued via assertion alone, failing to show that a fetus is equivalent to a human being.

As a result, this is an easy Pro ballot. Thank you, floor, for reading this debate.


Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by TruthHurts 3 years ago
Excuse me, Telisw37. Could you elaborate on your voting decision? Especially about how I had any BOP in the round.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Chuz-Life 3 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: As indicated in my vote, I agreed with Con prior to and following this debate. Kudos to both for equally good conduct. Though PRO seems to have a better grasp of the style and format needed to express their views, I can not say that is a win on 'grammar.' Because errors (in my view) were made by both PRO and CON in their arguments that pertain to the original challenge , I decided to vote 'tie' there as well. When it comes to sources, PRO obviously did a better job at providing them. However, I could not determine how the links provided in round one actually support his/her claims. While several of the sources provided in round two are very biased in favor of keeping abortion legal. PRO's remaining links may be more objective and reliable - but they were used to support claims and rebuttals that were not quite key to the central issue of this debate. The statistics of how many women die giving birth vs abortions does not speak to the 'morality' of the choices.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had presumptive BoP here, despite the way the debate was structured. Con made several unsupported or incorrect assertions. Pro successfully rebutted the points that Con DID make, including by pointing out where there were inaccuracies. Con failed in her BoP, and as such, arguments to Pro. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.