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

Abortion should be banned

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: 12/30/2010 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,604 times Debate No: 14201
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)




I know what you guys are thinking, "ugh, another abortion topic". Sorry, I felt like I had to do one at some point.

To sufficiently negate I do not need to prove that abortion is good, just that there is no justifiable reason to say that we "should" ban it.

I'm sure my opponent will love and have a hayday with this, but I will be arguing that abortion is acceptable in every circumstance, except late term. I will take the extreme position.

Lets begin.

1. Abortion is not a wrong form of murder, as some make it out to be.

Abortion is, however, killing. I will agree to this any day. Yes, I said it. What we should realize though is that killing is not always unacceptable. For instance, stepping on an ant is technically an act of murder, you killed the ant. But we most likely agree that killing an ant isnt a big deal. Certainly not enough to justify the banning of ant killing. There are other examples I can provide, but what we can infer from this is that there are acceptable acts of killing.

Now, its obvious that killing a real human being is considered a big deal. I agree. My point here is a fetus is not a human being. It is a compilation of undeveloped cells. Technically speaking, a fetus is less developed than any adult creature on the planet, such as our aforementioned ant friend. For this reason we cannot treat a formation of forming biological matter as a real human. Thus, because many nonhuman things aren't considered unacceptable to kill, a fetus should not be considered immune from death.

2. Forced beliefs.

One of the great things about the legality of this act is that we have a choice of whether or not to exercise it. If people believe abortion is wrong, nobody is forcing them to have one. They have every right to say no. In the same respect, if a person feels the need to have one, more power to them. Theoretically speaking, this should make it to where abortion isnt as hot of an issue that it is, but sadly it doesn't. The reason is that certain pro-lifers feel like they have the right to tell other people what they can and cannot do with their body. There is absolutely no respect for what other people believe.

These people think that its somehow okay to force other people into doing what they believe is right. This notion is ridiculous. There are documented instances where extreme pro lifers have physically attacked or abused someone who had an abortion, simply because they did not agree with their belief. Its really a shame that this kind of thing happens over something that is bringing neither party any harm.

So basically, I believe that people should be free from other people's coercions when making this decision. Let them make the choose themselves, and respect that choice.

If you are against abortion and do not have one when you had the opportunity, I will respect your decision and leave you alone. I also expect you to have the same respect for my decision, and allow me to do what I want or need to do freely. Even though I'm a guy. But you get the point.

By making abortion illegal, you are forcing your own beliefs onto hundreds of thousands of people. This is comparable to the many vast wars that have been started over religion. Millions of people have been killed simply because one group of people felt like they could force other people into accepting their religious beliefs. I'm sure all of us can agree this is wrong and a tragedy. Banning abortion is exactly the same concept.


I expect my opponent to argue against this point that under this logic, we should also allow people to murder and respect their decision as to whether they kill or not. This is vastly different. Murder of a live human is something that is widely considered wrong by a strong majority of people, and has genuine external impacts in the real world. Abortion is a debatable issue, in addition to having very little, if any, notable impact on society.

Thank you, and I await my opponent's response.


Thank you to my opponent for making this debate. Yes it's another one - but it's a hot topic, whattcha gonna do 'bout it? (And because my opponent made clarifications, I will as well. This refers to generally available abortion regardless of reason - in cases where severe or fatal injury could be caused to child or mother, this would not apply).

"1. Abortion is not a wrong form of murder, as some make it out to be."

Your argument here is a bit fallacious. Murder, legally, is the forceful and non-consensual act of ending a HUMAN BEINGS life. Stepping on an ant is not murder. It's stepping on an ant. And while a fetus may not scientifically be a human being, there is potential for humanity there. Suggesting we should diminish their life suggests that we should do the same for individuals with mental retardation or severe physical disorders who can't contribute to society. Yet no one suggests we put these individuals down, or refer to them as "nonhuman" though they're technically at the same capacity.

Also, scientifically you're nothing but a compilation of cells too. So am I. Cells and atoms make up all of us. To devalue a fetus simply because they aren't fully constructed cells, or don't contain as many cells, seems to ignore the basic biological processes that create all of us.

2. Forced beliefs.

Isn't getting an abortion forcing you're belief on someone who doesn't even have the capacity to make their own decisions yet?

"So basically, I believe that people should be free from other people's coercions when making this decision."

Except the fetus I suppose.

Yes, I know the fetus can't make decisions yet, but once again I refer you my comparison above - neither can people with severe impairments. Yet there are laws protecting these people and no one is arguing we allow people to kill them unless they're on the verge of death.

Besides, this is under the assumption that abortion isn't murder. Say it is in my belief system that stealing is okay. Is the law forcing me to follow a belief system that isn't mine? Isn't the idea of stealing being wrong just a social construct that's enforced by majority belief?

And as a response to your preempt, to say it doesn't effect us, how are we to know? Speculations about time travel show us the smallest actions in the past can change the future in way we can't even determine. That abortion may not at the time seem catastrophic, and even in the future. But that my friend is what I like to call "alternative consequence bias" - that is, you see that nothing has changed because you don't know any other alternative. Things could be drastically different.

As as a final statement, abortion goes against human nature and the laws of natural selection, because it removes a principle that has existed for years and puts it in the hands of imperfect human beings. By performing our own "natural selection" we could be doing catastrophic damages to our species, when you consider what legal abortion implies - that the poor and less educated will have more children and the wealthier will have less. This isn't optimal evolution.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for her lightning fast response.

Onto the args.

First she makes this very strange assumption that abortion in cases of potential injury to he mother or child have no relevance in this round. First off, this is slightly abusive as this is saying that I'm not allowed to defend a desirable part of abortion. Secondly, she didnt address my observation that said I defend all types of abortion (which encompasses parent injury), so I must assume she is okay with it. Third, there was no reason given as to why we should not look at potential injuries.

1. She says killing an ant isnt murder because murder is killing a human. Technically, I was just using murder as a lax term to mean the killing of anything, which could include an ant. But whether stepping on an ant is killing or murder isnt a big issue.

The argument is that fetuses have the potential for humanity. So does sperm. If we're going to accept her logic that denying life to anything that can become a human is wrong, then that would justify saying that having protected sex is wrong because we are denying the opportunity of life. Obviously, we all know protected sex is good, not bad. So we reject this logic of "we must retain the potential for humanity".

She says abortion is similar to killing mentally challenged people. Not really; the challenged person is alive, developed, and can function independently. The fetus is semi-alive, undeveloped, and incapable of most of, well, anything. I dont think you can compare the 2 with these vast differences.

She says we are all a compilation of cells such as a fetus is. This is taking my argument a bit out of context, as I specifically said a fetus is "undeveloped" cells while people are not so. Despite what she believes, this is a big difference as the undeveloped cells in a fetus are what differentiates them from real people so much, in regards to size, functions, thought, etc. Thats why we dont treat them as real people, and thus dont feel the need to think of abortion as this terrible terrible thing.


Her main argument here is that we also force our belief on the fetus by having an abortion. But it looks like she can defeat this argument without my help on this one, as she points out that fetuses cannot make decisions and thus do not have beliefs.

People with mental disabilities can indeed make decisions, and are thus vastly different from a fetus. They may not be the most sophisticated people in the world, but I would think that if you asked one of them if they want to be euthanized, they would say no. Assuming they knew what that meant. This is in contrast to the fetus, which cannot think or make decisions. Challenged people can also feel pain. Whether a fetus can is very debatable, so there's another difference between them and another reason abortion isnt necessarily wrong.

She says that banning theft is also forcing beliefs on people. Wrong. Stealing is not a belief anyone considers good. Even robbers know that stealing is wrong, and as she herself points out, almost everybody knows this. This is not the case with abortion. The belief is roughly 50-50 or 60-40. Unless she can give me a source saying that 80-90% of people are against abortion, then my argument will stand that forcing the belief that abortion is bad on so many people is wrong.

Furthermore, she does not address my argument about banning abortion being similar to religious wars, which we all know are wrong because people have died in them because one group of people thought it was right to force the other what to believe. I compared this obvious atrocity to banning abortion, and how that is telling you what you can and cannot do.

Extend the argument that we should respect other people's decisions. Both pro lifers and pro choicers should do this. We dont force people to have abortions, so they shouldnt force us to not have them.

Finally she says that having abortions can impact society, implying that people who were aborted may have been great people or cure cancer or something like that in an alternate reality. But, this works both ways. They may also have been murderers, generally unlikable people, or, the next Hitler *insert dramatic music*. So because this theory can support both sides, I propose that we abandon it and only focus on the direct implications of having an abortions, which are none, other than perhaps saving a mother's life who cannot safely have a baby.

Thanks for continuing, I await the next round.


Thanks to my opponent for responding.

Just to clarify my reasoning for exempting cases of severe injury, I assumed I would be allowed to make an exemption to my argument since you made one for yours. You clarified you will be defending abortion EXCEPT in late term abortions. I clarified I'll be arguing for the ban of abortion EXCEPT in extreme and possibly fatal cases.

1. But murder is a legal term with a very precise definition.

Sperm doesn't have the potential for humanity. The difference between sperm and a fetus is sperm (1) has a very very high likelihood of never surviving in the first place where as the great majority of fetuses will survive through pregnancy and (2) sperm has not yet fertilized anything therefore isn't potentially anything yet. That and unlike a fetus which develops the appropriate cells to become human, sperm will never do that. Sperm is not a potential human - an egg and a sperm together are.

Clearly you have never met a mentally challenged person. They can not function independently. And once again your argument bases itself on the idea that killing a fetus isn't murder.

There's no such thing as undeveloped cells. A fetus is merely cells that aren't fully compiled. Similar to when you cut yourself or scrape your skin, you're decompiling cells that will reform there later. It's not that the fetus has undeveloped cells, they just have to form themselves and multiply to create the human form. And it is a basic part of humanity. We will lose and gain cells all our lives as we grow. Should we diminish our earliest stages just because they grow slightly faster? It's completely natural. As we grow, the process gets slower and slower. But in the beginning it's incredibly fast. We all have to start somewhere.


Mentally challenged people can not always make their own decisions. As someone who has worked with severely physically and mentally challenged people, I can assure you that there are many that can not make their own decisions about anything, let alone live independently. And while fetuses may not be able to make a decision, who's to argue that neither can small toddlers? Of course they can but they can't tell us necessarily. And personally them not being able to make decisions makes it worse. Would you agree that forcing young children into situations they don't understand and taking advantage of their nativity is wrong? Isn't it the same thing to abort a fetus under the pretense "they can't make their own decisions".

"She says that banning theft is also forcing beliefs on people. Wrong. Stealing is not a belief anyone considers good. Even robbers know that stealing is wrong, and as she herself points out, almost everybody knows this."

That is a very wide generalization. There could very well be a group out there that sees no problem with theft. This is not the case with abortion. What about hardcore drugs? There's plenty of people who'd like to legalize those. What about guns, and gay marriage, and the death penalty - all controversial issues where someones will is forced on someone else. To say "this forced your belief on me" is nothing short of an obvious statement - both sides will always believe the other side is "forcing beliefs on them".

I am not religious so I'm afraid I don't understand the connection. I think it's an assumption made based on the fact the loudest people who are against abortion tend to be religious.

I believe that's like saying "I won't convince you to smoke cigarettes if you don't convince me to stop". It's not exactly a fair trade off.

So they could've been murderers. Are you implying some good never comes of horrible situations? Also I never once alluded to that. They could grow up and be Average Joe but a treasure to there family. They could be just an office schmuck but make someone who loves them very happy. They might be Ted Bundy, but bring a community together unified to fight against the killer. Are you saying that the aftermath of 9/11 didn't frame this country has unified in this time of disaster? Of course it doesn't make disaster good but of every bad situation some good comes of it, and often it's enormous and widespread. You can't disregard the changed timeline on the simple basis that "well they could be a murderer too" because that murderer could reform our entire death penalty policy. Also speaking of direct implications there are far more than physical. Many woman who get an abortion will experience severe stress afterwards and sometimes worse.

And like I supposedly ignored the religious wars argument, my opponent seems to be ignoring my natural selection argument.

I await your next response.
Debate Round No. 2


Alright, thanks for clarifying about the observation. Thats fine.

1. Murder is indeed a legal term defined as killing another human. My argument is that a fetus is not a human, as you even said yourself that it is only a "potential for humanity".

She says that a sperm has no potential to become a human. Um, what?

She makes all these contrasts as to say that a sperm an fetus are vastly different.
An individual sperm does have a low probability of becoming a human. Collectively though, there is a significant chance. One "deposit" typically has a 25% chance of becoming fertilized. So to deny that sperm cannot become a human is ridiculous. A sperm makes up the fetus which makes up the human, so again they are comparable.

For readers I will just give a quick reminder; my point was that we consider it acceptable to prevent sperm from becoming a human, which is not altogether different from doing the same for a fetus.

@ Mentally challenged: When I say "function independently", I mean that if we leave it disconnected from outside forces it can survive. If we put a challenged person in an empty room, they will live. If we do the same to a fetus, it will not. The point here is that the 2 are not comparable in regards to functioning because one is dependent on other things to survive. "Humans" do not do this.

She then says that a fetus isnt undeveloped, it is just uncompiled. She uses an example of cutting your skin as decompiling cells. This example will turn against her. If a piece of skin is scraped off, or "decompiled", the we really dont care what happens to it afterwards. Nobody will tell me its wrong to leave it lying on the ground or anything like that. Since a fetus is uncompiled cells just as she says skin is, we apply that logic to abortion to realize that getting rid of uncompiled cells isn't wrong in the slightest.

Furthermore, whether the fetus is undeveloped on uncompiled matters little. It it still unlike live humans, who are neither.


She continues to compare fetuses to mentally challenged people. These people are 1. Alive, 2. Survive independently (Empty Room example), and 3. Regardless of their condition, still have much greater brain activity than a fetus, which has none. The 2 are vastly different, so lets not compare them.

Toddlers are fully alive human beings, fetuses are not. Again not comparable.

Abortion is not just under the pretense of "they cant make their own decisions". I have given several reasons. Lack of independent functioning, compiled cells, brain activity, and the ability to make decisions.

Forced beliefs: Sure, maybe two or three people in the world think theft is fine. But the overwhelming majority knows that it is wrong. When at least 99% of people acknowledge that stealing is bad and hurts people, its obviously okay to keep it illegal. This is in contrast to abortion, which is a 50/50 issue, thus there's no need to ban it universally.

Hardcore drugs do have supporters for both side on legalization. They are still illegal because of the fear of what might happen if made legal, some argue that doing so would create negative impacts on society. Contrary to abortion which does not do so.

Guns also directly harm fully alive people. Gay marriage has no real impacts and is a 50/50 issue. I believe that since it is similar to abortion in this regard, it should stay legal. Death penalty exists for justice reasons.

The religious wars argument is about wars being started because people were trying to force their religious beliefs onto other people. Ex: The Crusades, Taiping Rebellion, Thirty Years War. We all know this is ridiculous and a tragedy. This is the same as banning abortion, because doing so forces the pro-lifers beliefs on everybody else, which should also be considered ridiculous.

"I believe that's like saying "I won't convince you to smoke cigarettes if you don't convince me to stop"."

That quote-within-a-quote actually makes sense. I dont support smoking, but it would definitely be wrong to ban it.

So now we get to the "what could have been" argument. She basically just gives more examples of aborted fetuses being good people, which I have alread refuted. The only thing she said against that refute was that even if the aborted fetus would have been a bad person they could have done some good. Again, it works both ways. A generally good or nice person can get in an accident and hurt somebody. Or, they could just be a bad person and never do any good at all. Look, this argument is just so open-ended and theory based; we can make all these predictions we want about "what could have been", but in reality we have no idea. Lets get away from this theory based argument and move onto real life implications.

And speak of the devil, thats what her last argument is. "Many woman who get an abortion will experience severe stress afterwards and sometimes worse."

First off, no source or examples is given of this. Please disregard any she gives in the final round because I would not have an opportunity to refute its methods of research or its findings in general. Secondly, in the event this actually does happen, the only thing that indicates is that the woman obviously was not decisive or well informed enough to make the decision and as such, regretted it. Thats no reason to ban abortion, rather we should encourage more knowledge to be given on the issue.

Final point: My opponent is the pro side of a resolution that advocates a change in the status quo. This means she is obligated (burden of proof) to give reasons as to why we should ban abortion. She has not done so in this entire debate. All she has done is attack my arguments while giving none of her own. She has never even said anywhere that abortion should be banned. So since I have given arguments as to why abortion should stay and she has not given any as to why it should not, I urge a con vote.

Many thanks to Darceem for finishing.


darceem forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by darceem 5 years ago
That is my way of life. I guess that's what I get for starting a debate that left my last round so close to New Years :P
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
o.O well that sucks. Still, I love procrastination but thats going a tad bit overboard if you're counting the seconds.
Posted by Koopin 5 years ago
Posted by darceem 5 years ago
That was horrific. I had my entire argument written. It was all ready. But the stupid review button held me up. I missed it by literally one second.
Posted by darceem 5 years ago
"I'm just filled with adoration for..." "WE DON'T SPEAK THAT WORD IN THIS HOUSE BOY!" I can see how that might get testy. As it is New Years, I'll finish my concluding argument tomorrow.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
Alternate realities is definently interesting. Shows about it are usually pretty good.

Glad this hasnt become a heated and angry sounding debate. A couple of my relatives will start screaming at anything that sounds anything like the word.
Posted by darceem 5 years ago
Yes except rather than just saying it I'm using an actually theory related to time travel and the concept of how simple actions can change actions in the future. I personally believe in the "plastic time" scenario over the "alternate time lines" scenario. I think the alternate time lines thing implies an understand of dimensional planes we simply don't have and the plastic time theory support more cause and effect. But that's an argument for another day.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
On the alternate reality argument, are you basically saying that one of the aborted fetuses might have grown up to cure cancer or something?
Posted by darceem 5 years ago
POINT: I have no real standard opinion on abortion, but I know plenty about it and feel interested in knowing what it's like on the other side of the argument.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by darceem 5 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 
Vote Placed by Koopin 5 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30