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

Abortion should be considered a right

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: 6/29/2016 Category: Health
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 297 times Debate No: 93212
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




It is a known fact that no contraceptive is 100% effective. Hence there is a possibility of unplanned pregnancies, which may occur under various circumstances. While most are pleasant surprises, in some cases like pregnancies in teenagers or women with terminal illnesses, these unplanned pregnancies have the power to affect the lives of all parties involved in a negative manner. In such cases, abortion should not only be considered moral, but should be encouraged.


You make an argument to justify abortion to then assume that because it is moral, it should be a right. The problem with the syllogism that you attempted is that you have committed a logical fallacy. You attempt to justify abortion as moral by an argument from pity or an appeal to an emotion. An act can not be justified simply because not doing the act would cause some sort of negative result. You also assume that because it is moral, it should be a right. Just because something is moral does not mean it can be defined as a right. Your first premise is true but then the next premise is a fallacy and that results in your conclusion which is faulty.
Debate Round No. 1


I stand by my argument, as most man-made laws are based upon laws of nature. Natural law theories have exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law[1]. Due to this, most legislations in the world are based on natural law, for example, The US Declaration of Independence[2]. Hence, my justification that abortion must be declared as a right because it is morally strong, is indeed well-founded. Besides, the ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization? Therefore, pregnant women's right of opting abortion must be protected by law.

1. Blackstone, William. Commentaries on the Laws of England. Clarendon Press.


The law of nature believes in individual liberty. You obviously make the assumption that whatever is in a woman's body is not an individual so therefore a woman has a right over it. America was built upon individual freedom for all including those who can't defined themselves. If a woman who is pregnant drives to an abortion clinic to have her child aborted and dies on the way in a car wreck and the other driver is found guilty then it's ruled a double homicide. The courts that are based on the laws of nature you mention view a pregnant woman as carrying an unborn human child that has individual rights regardless of what the mother wants. Once again you commit another fallacy. You say that if (A: a woman can not abort the child) then (B: more government mandates will come and then C and so on. This could happen but again assumptions can not justify making abortion a right of a woman. I'm sure that your intentions are good and pure but you stand by arguments that are riddled with logical fallacies. Until you resolve those fallacies and build an argument without them, you can't have much of a debate. Assume that you are right and I am wrong....even if you are right you have to prove it and make an argument that is logically sound or you have no credibility.
Debate Round No. 2


My argument does not contain an assumption, but a prediction. While an assumption is a shot in the dark, a prediction draws a conclusion about the future based on past or present data. In my case, my argument that violation of one right will probably lead to another is severely backed by historic occurrences.

Now as that is cleared up, let us focus on individual liberty. Before that, we must define the term 'individual'. As of today, no clear definition is available for the term, as it is still a grey area (especially in our current topic). For instance, the 'Born-alive Rule' states that a fetus is not considered an individual until it is born alive, that is, it can exist independently without the mother[1][2]. Hence it can be argued that as an unborn fetus has no individuality, it has no individual rights. It all comes down to the de facto rights of the mother against the debatable rights of the fetus, at which point it becomes clear that abortion must indeed be a right of a woman.

Finally, I would like to point out an irony. Your argument is that as my argument contains a fallacy, it is false - and by default yours is true[3]. This itself is a fallacy, and proves nothing with regard to the topic.

2. Edward Coke, First Part of the Institutes on the Laws of England
3. "Until you resolve those fallacies and build an argument without them, you can't have much of a debate."


If you are making an assumption or a prediction you are still using the slippery slope fallacy to justify why abortions should be allowed. The entire question of abortion is if what is in the mother is a life and if it is then it would be murder or if not then it would not be immoral to do away with what is inside. So you quote one "rule" and then conclude that you must be correct because of a rule someone wrote up. I challenge that because within the first 22 days a heart is beating and organs are working. A baby still needs its mother even after birth. A baby even though outside the womb is very dependent but is still an individual.

You again make a false claim on your last paragraph. I NEVER said that because you are wrong that it makes me right. You have imagined that argument. What I said is that you make arguments that are logically fallacious. Until you stop appealing to pity and using the slippery slope you can not justify abortion. Find logically sound arguments then begin to debate.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by gahileshkumar 3 months ago
There is no cut-off point, as long as the fetus is still in utero, and abortion does not affect the mother's well-being critically.
P.S. - I apologize for not defining the parameters earlier, I'm new to debating.
Posted by 3 months ago
Think Pro still needs to define what exactly the parameters are here. Does the definition include an abortion had during labor? Where's the cut-off point? Is there no cut-off point?
Posted by Brieson 3 months ago
I agree with Silas_Cole. The natural rights cannot be forfeited for any sort of legal right. You cannot give precedence to a woman's body. The natural and inalienable right to life is at the pinnacle of all other rights - a woman's right to have an abortion conflicts with the right to life.
Posted by 3 months ago
Can you say what you mean by a 'right'? As in, you can get one whenever you want, and for free? Or, it should always be available to be purchased? Do you also mean at any point in the pregnancy, up to the moment of birth? I was planning on accepting but think I need to know more about your definitions first.
Posted by Silas_Cole 3 months ago
I think that's stupid. First of all rights don't come from the government and the government has no business coming up with so called "rights" and handing them out to the people whenever they feel the need to do so. Moreover, kids are told in school and probably at home and common sense would tell you that if you have sex then you might get pregnant. The very fact that people have a right to choose and then choose wrong and then wants to right that wrong choice by giving themselves a right to abort their own wrong decision is plain ridiculous and irresponsible. That's like murderers trying to give themselves the right to kill people so they don't have to deal with the consequences of the wrong choice they made. But it's easy for people to be for abortion that happen to never have been aborted themselves. I bet they are even glad that they didn't get aborted by their parents because they happen to enjoy their lives, which is why they want to abort so they can live their life free of responsibility. Also, abortion has nothing to do with the mother and her rights to do what she wants with her body, it's about righting a wrong choice in life. But there again, why is it that women want to give themselves a right to do with what they want with their bodies whenever a suicide person doesn't have a right to do what they want with their bodies? heck, it's a crime to try to kill yourself. Your also probably going to bring up pregnancy by rape so let me explain that one. If you get pregnant by rape then kill the rapist and give the baby up for adoption. That baby has just as much to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as you do. I bet he would even enjoy his own life even though his father was a raper. I also guarantee that if you start killing the rapists then we will have a major decrease in rape crime and the problem of pregnancy by rape will eventually be solved.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SchinkBR 3 months 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree that pro used too many analogies and fallacies. In general, I was disappointed with the lack of facts, especially from Con.