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

Abortion is wrong under most circumstances

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/5/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 510 times Debate No: 69451
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




Out of all America's Constitutional violations, abortion is the worst. Our founding fathers dreamed of a land where all men and women can live with the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Abortion takes away a person's right to life by killing it, plain and simple. Abortion takes away a persons liberty by ending their life before they can make any choices for themselves. And, abortion takes away the right to the pursuit of happiness by denying them all of the happiness that this earth can offer. This person will never have a childhood, will never have friends, will never have good times, will never grow up, will never fall in love, will never get married, will never have a family, will never grow old with the one he/she loves, will never die at peace with God and man alike.

Many will argue that these unborn children are not human, and therefore do not deserve the rights of humans. I ask you too look from history to see the fallacy in this argument. Two times in our nation's history have violations of human rights been considered OK by society. The first being slavery, the second being the holocaust. Both times, the mass killing/torture was justified by saying that these people were subhuman. However, today, we know that these were lies.

Many claim that these unborn children are human, but they are not living yet (as of the first trimester). This logic is also severely flawed. First off, even in the first trimester, a fetus has a heartbeat, brain, and spinal column. Even if it did not it is still a living being made up of living cells. If you say that something is only living if it has brain functions, you say that plants, amoebas, fungi, many insects and arthropods, and most liberals are not living things.

People also say that a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body. And she should. She should have the right to choose what to do and not to do. She should choose not to have unprotected sex when she isn't ready.

"But what if she was raped?"

Let's deal with the problem, not punish the child for the sins of the father. I'm suggesting higher punishment and a crackdown on enforcement for rapists. It is completely unacceptable for this kind of a problem to exist in our society. But a child doesn't need to be burned alive by acid because of it.

In conclusion, abortion is a horrible disgrace in our country. It shows a remarkable disregard for human rights, and even under most "special circumstances" it should be considered murder.


Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Anything else you want to throw into the mix? First off, the founding fathers did not dream of a land of . . .life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. It was their argument for their independence. If you read the declaration, you would see the overwhelming body cites the charges against King George III. [1] Not a reason to not have an abortion.

My opponent also commits the fallacy of slippery slope. If we allow A to happen (abortion), then H will also happen (never have friends, never grow up, etc), therefore, A should not happen. Instead of discussing the issue, you present these extreme hypotheticals, using fear as a leverage.

"All the happiness this world can offer?"

You have got to be kidding me. 3 million reports of child abuse [2], an increasingly high number of malnourished mothers, 11, 420 children dead from Syria"s civil war [3], 120,000 babies born with birth defects [4] (and that is every year, by the way). This is how children die. As morbid as this sounds, am I supposed to pick the lesser of two evils?

"Two times in our nation's history have violations of human rights been considered OK by society. . .slavery. . .holocaust"

Really? For a good portion of history, women were denied suffrage, economic equality, and the right over their body.

"a fetus has a heartbeat, brain and spinal column. Even if it did not it is still a living being made up of living cells"

First, no sources. Second, my opponent wants you to accept that because a living being is made of living cells, it should be reason enough to conclude it is morally impermissible to abort a fetus. "Even if it did not"? It looks like you yourself are unsure of your own argument.

"She should choose not to have unprotected sex when she isn't ready"

First off, sex is a physiological need, much like sleep and food in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. To assert that it is a choice not fill this need is faulty. When you say 'country', I will assume the United States. States with the highest teen pregnancy rates are also states with inadequate sex education.[5] If women do not know or cannot understand how pregnancy follows intercourse, should we say they had a choice?

My opponent suggests higher punishment but provides no means of execution. Retribution, 'an eye for an eye'? Rape the rapists? It not a horrible disgrace. It is a decision that will stay with you for the rest of your life. I want this to come from someone who has had an abortion. This is Nicole's story:


Debate Round No. 1


Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are in the declaration of independence, not the constitution, but should this mean that it is not an important part of the philosophy that this country is founded upon?

My opponent accuses me of the rhetorical fallacy of slippery slope, but I don't understand where he gets this idea. It is simple logic that if one is not allowed to live before he even starts breathing, he will not be able to enjoy the happiness in life. It's not A to H, it is just A to B. Of course I use fear as an appeal because it is something worth being afraid of.

Your math adds up to a little over 3 million unfortunate cases in our nation, while I add up 1.21 million abortions in the US EACH YEAR. I'll let the voters decide which is worse. (1)

As a typical liberal, my opponent attempts to point out this imaginary "War on Women" that the conservatives wage. Rather than focusing on how to improve our country, he focuses on our shortcomings in previous centuries. The United States granted women's suffrage at or before most other countries in the world. (2) He still fails to answer to the fact that the pro abortion movement is EXTREMELY close to the justification of slavery and the holocaust. I am not saying that it was permissible for the world to discriminate against women for so long, however I prefer to celebrate how far we have come and work towards the future.

My intentions were to use sources at the end of my final argument, but if it pleases my opponent, I will use them throughout.

The reason that I chose to say, "Even if it did not," was not because I was unsure of my own argument, it was to humor my opponents flawed sense of reason regarding life in order to make my point.

Maybe to an immoral, addicted creature such as my opponent, sex is a necessity. But to a larger, more sophisticated group of thinkers, sex is a want. We have drives toward sex, we desire sex, and sex can be beneficial, but it is not a need. (3) It is unfortunate that so many people are uneducated regarding sex, but once again, let's focus on the problem, not use murder as a solution.

Somehow, my opponent thinks that I suggested an 'eye for an eye,' with rapists, when I never stated anything close to that. I suggest longer prison sentences, and I recommend that more women train and arm themselves to protect against these people. Putting rape aside, no argument can forgive the other 99% of abortions that have nothing to do with rape. (4)

Now, my opponent seems content with ad hominem as an argument, but I hope he realizes that attacking my word choices does not help him conquer his objective. I would actually like to hear an argument that defends abortion, and doesn't focus on attacking my methods.



My apologies. My point was to show that you had left out some really important things. Again, I apologize for the ad hominem.

Pro abortion is not extremely close to slavery or the holocaust. The problem is you have to decide at what point you are going to elevate a fetus to a human being. Just this part will be long debated, so let"s hold off on that. So, at this point, we have to define a human being, or homo sapien. The word is latin for "wise man". We are capable of walking upright, articulate speech, and a highly developed brain. [1] A fetus is not a separate entity in the first trimester, it is still a part of the mother. Its important to note that this is when most abortions happen. This doesn"t mean fetuses are not potential human beings. Slaves, people of jewish descent, and others are biologically human. To say abortion is to slavery or holocaust is biologically unfair. Also, how come you did not include women? Were they not also treated subhuman?

Let me also mention that some women will get an abortion by any means, and as a consequence most end up dead. The access to legal abortions, using effective and safe methods, is vital to the health of the mother. Yes, in all this craziness, we forget who the victim is. It"s the mother. It is a decision that she has to make, and that decision stays with you. I will address the argument that abortion causes mental health problems right now.

There is no credible evidence, that"s just it. Also, for those who want to point out adoption, it is just as damaging if a woman chose abortion. There are also the economic reasons. As morbid as this sounds, it is a justified way to control population. If abortions were looked down upon, our earth would be exhausted of its resources much faster. That world looks a little worse than this:

As much as abortion is moral, it is also political. If we put anti-abortion laws, placing a higher value on the fetus than the mother, who gets to interpret these laws? That"s right, it"s the government. That itself presents a very dangerous path. We are talking riots and protests if that reproductive choice belongs to someone else. Again, I agree there are always exceptions.
My opponent suggests longer prison sentences and training women to protect themselves, which is very irrelevant. Let us stop trying to worry about who did it, and instead look at how the victims will be hurt
Debate Round No. 2


I appreciate your move away from ad hominem and onto defending abortion. Your arguments are well stated and I appreciate your effort to convey your ideas in a professional way.

Many people, including my opponent justify abortion because they say that the child is not a human at the point of the first trimester. They say that since the child is still wholly dependent on the mother for it's existence, it cannot be considered a separate living being. However, under this logic, a born child, still in the nursing phase, is not a separate entity either. In truth, nearly all of us as human beings are dependent on others for our well being, whether it be emotionally, physically, or spiritually. Thus, dependency is not a factor in determining whether or not something is human.

My opponent cites the definition for what a homo sapien is: A species of mammal capable of walking upright, articulate speech, and highly developed brain function. And this is a very good definition of a FULLY DEVELOPED human. A tree is defined as "a plant with a permanently woody stem or trunk." (1) A sapling does not have a woody stem it its early stages, and yet we still consider it to be a tree. In the same way, an unborn child does not meet the dictionary definition of a homo sapien, but it should still be considered human.

My opponent says that some women will get an abortion by any means, and therefore we should provide them with a safe alternative. I think that this is a policy of both appeasement, and injustice. This can be considered appeasement because it gives women who desire to have an abortion a legal alternative simply because they threaten to do so illegally. This is also full of injustice because it rewards those who deliberately do wrong. (I will address the reasons why abortion is immoral later.) What if our government provided a quick way for you to murder your friend simply because you threatened to do so illegally if it was not made legal. Obviously that holds no logic. Thus, abortion should not be legal because women threaten to get illegal abortions if denied legal ones.

It is true, by sources including the one that my opponent cites that adoption can be difficult and emotionally stressful. However, it is not as bad as abortion. With adoption, a woman may have emotional problems, and the child too may face emotional problems. But at least with adoption, a child has the opportunity to make his life better and to make his own choices. A woman can have a more clear conscience knowing that they spared a life. With abortion, a woman sits with the knowledge that she denied someone of a life, and she denied the world of a potential genius. In abortion, a child gets no choice, a child gets no freedom. Adoption is by far the less damaging option.

Abortion can only be justified politically by a government that does not value the lives of its citizens. To deprive them of the previously stated benefits is just too much for me to accept as politically ok.

My opponent attempts to say that higher consequences for rape and protection and training of the victims is irrelevant. This could not be farther from the truth. Armed and or trained women, protecting each other and themselves, not allowing themselves to become targets, and the concept of a higher risk for rapists would nearly eliminate rape, and as a result, eliminate this "need" for abortion to solve rape. It's true, I do not spend time focusing on how the victims are hurt from rape, because we already know this. So let's stop these horrible things from happening.

Seeing as this is the final round, I will conclude my argument.

Abortion violates the very principles of a free, safe America. It is a clear violation of human rights, and it hams many while temporarily benefiting only the mother. Rape and incest can be solved without the help of abortion, and actions should be taken to prevent these things, rather than cover up the mess. By depriving mothers and fathers of their good conscience, by depriving society of potential for mankind, and by depriving children of everything good in this world, abortion is neither politically, nor morally acceptable. I urge the American public to do all that is in their power to oppose this legalized genocide.


Stories of abortions hurtfulness:


Jupiter1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Jupiter1 1 year ago
Geogeer, the summary of the debate was excellent. I do agree that it was half argued on both sides. I apologize to my opponent for not fulfilling my part of the conclusion. Thank you for the debate!
Posted by Geogeer 1 year ago
RFD 4 of 4

Given the fact that Pro failed to fully establish his points, I believe that Con would have won the debate. However, given the Con failed to complete the debate I will only award the conduct point to Pro.
Posted by Geogeer 1 year ago
RFD 3 of 4

Con comes back with a personhood argument. He argues that human beings are capable of walking upright, articulate speech and a highly developed brain. He claims that the fetus is not a separate entity in the first trimester, but rather a part of the mother. He goes on to argue that blacks and Jews were biologically human and that is why slavery and the holocaust were different (this implicitly implies that fetus" are not biologically human).

Con introduces another argument stating that most women who try to procure a non-legal abortion end up dead. Con further claims the real victim in abortion is the mother.

Con argues that adoption is just as damaging as abortion and that it is necessary to prevent over population.

Con makes a final emotional appeal stating that if precedence of rights is given to the unborn that it is the government getting to impose these laws.

Round 3

Pro correctly notes that dependency is not a sufficient determination of whether someone is human or not. Pro argues that the unborn should be considered to be human even though they do not meet the dictionary definition. Here he has ceded the argument to Con as he does not give a valid counter argument. His only argument amounts to a "Yeah, but it doesn"t count here". He attempts to use an analogy, but never gives a counter definition or connects the dots.

Pro give a reasonable rebuttal to the women are going to do it anyways argument and attempts an argument at the adoption is better than abortion.

Pro continues to get caught up the a meaningless reduction of rape side debate.

Pro"s closing statement contain many claims that were not fully established int he debate.

Con failed to make a closing round of arguments.


It is my opinion that both debaters danced around the topic to a large degree with half formed arguments that lacked precision either to the topic of the debate or the topic they thought they were debating.
Posted by Geogeer 1 year ago
RFD 2 of 4

Con notes that Pro did not include women"s suffrage in the list of violations of human rights.

Con notes that Pro has no sources for the unborn being human. He goes on to note that Pro somewhat flip-flopped on the what it is to be human statement.

Con goes on to argue that sex is a psychological need and that apparently since it is a need the it is not a choice on the part of the woman. Con further argues that due to a lack of sex education that women do not know that this is how pregnancy comes about.

Con makes an emotional appeal on rape for his final argument. This does not actually refute Pro"s argument.

Round 2

Pro reasserts that the Declaration of Independence is a valuable philosophical document that underpins the US Constitution. This has some weight as the abortion debate is highly philosophical in nature.

Pro correctly addresses that his argument is not a slippery slope, but rather one of consequences.

Pro counters con"s claims about bad situations for children by saying that there are lots of abortions too. Both sides are stating statistics without either side linking those statistics to abortion being "wrong under most circumstances". While I can understand what the debaters are trying to argue, neither has formed it into a logical argument.

Pro attempts to jaundice the readers by calling Con a "typical liberal" who raises a false flag of a "war on women". Pro pushes the point that abortion is analogous to slavery and the holocaust. Pro gets caught up wasting valuable debate words on women"s suffrage which isn"t part of this debate.

Pro does not salvage his "even if it did not" statement here.

Pro does do a relatively good job of showing that sex is not a need, however he could have hammered this point home better. Instead he wastes space claiming that Con is an immoral addicted creature.
Posted by Geogeer 1 year ago

First off the topic chosen for the debate was poor as "wrong under most circumstances" is a somewhat subjective statement and poorly sets up the debate. Both sides think they know what they are debating, but it seems to circle around the topic without actually addressing it sometimes.

Round 1

Pro begins with the philosophical statement at the beginning of the declaration of independence on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He goes on to argue these three fundamental rights are violated by abortion.

Pro states that to not call the unborn human is wrong. Instead of backing this up with some fact he argues by analogy that black slaves are concentration camp occupants were likewise denied being human. While this may make a fine argument once the humanity of the unborn is established, this has yet to be established.

Pro continues on to claim that the unborn are living in the first trimester because they have a hearbeat, brain and spinal column. Then contradicts this argument stating that even if it didn"t have these things it has living cells. Once again Pro has not established that the unborn is a living human.

Pro continues that bodily autonomy of the woman to choose to have a child was rejected when she willingly engaged in sex. Then abandons this argument when considering a case of rape arguing that the child should not be punished for what the father did. Both arguments may be valid, but the way they are presented is not coherent and leaves the argument weak.

Con opens his argument stating that the majority of the declaration of independence was charges against King George III. This argument does not deny Pro"s assertions in the first round, but merely attempts to deflect away the argument.

Con argues that Pro is presenting a slippery slope argument. Alas Pro was pointing out possible consequences to the action and not a slippery slope.
Posted by Jupiter1 1 year ago
Wow, I barely made it.
Posted by Jonnykelly 1 year ago
Reminder to my opponent that time is running out.
Posted by ElloGovna12 1 year ago
I would love to debate you, but you have put up an astonishing argument. Props to you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 1 year 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: See Comments for RFD.