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

Abortion should be encouraged.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,988 times Debate No: 46105
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)




Teenage pregnancies and rape are the first thing that comes to my mind when asked why I am for abortion.

Every child deserves loving parents and a safe environment for growing up. The vast majority of teenagers are not capable of providing this to a child. Imagine being a 17-year old girl. You have sex with your loving boyfriend, just like any other Friday night. But this time the protection fails. Later, you notice that you're pregnant. Both of you are in the middle of an educational program. Neither of you have a sufficient level of income to support the child. Why not end the child's misery before it even starts?

Rape, I think, goes without saying. Let's put ourselves in the shoes of the same 17-year old girl I used in my previous example. You are out partying with your friends, and take the risk of walking home alone. A stranger rapes you. Weeks later, you find yourself pregnant. Would you really want to keep the child when you don't even know who the father of it is? Again, every child has the right to loving parents. I personally don't think a rapist would be one. Again, why not end the child's misery before it starts?



My stance is that abortion should be discouraged but not illegal. I will explain.

First, your point about teenage pregnancy. I have a friend who is now a mother at age 15. Being a teenage mom is very difficult to do. I think we are agreed on that point. However, I am a Christian. The Bible tells me not to have sex out of wedlock. Why? Because of this issue. Kids need to stop hooking up with their friends, period. If people acted responsibly, no one would even care about abortion because the pregnant moms would be married and most likely out of high school. The baby shouldn't be punished because a young girl did something wrong. That's unethical and unfair to the unborn baby.

Think of it this way. My friend's grandpa just died leaving his wife (My friend's grandma) alone. She didn't want to live alone but couldn't afford an old folks home. My friends are the closest living relatives and took this poor lady in to live with them. The catch? The father of the family hasn't had a job for 2 years. This family could barely afford their house and they now had to accommodate their grandma. It was a tough situation. In order to cover all the costs involved, my 17 year old friend had to quit basketball to start working at McDonalds. Now think of this in terms of abortion: A girl has a baby that she can't afford - Should she just kill the baby? That's what you were saying in your first point. How is this different than my friend's grandma? They couldn't afford her - Should they kill her off?

Again, these teen girls need to 1) Stop hooking up and 2) Stop hooking up and most importantly 3) STOP HOOKING UP. These careless girls are the ones who start this whole issue.

Like I said, Abortion should be discouraged but not illegal. Why? Because of rape. Rape should be the only instance in which it should be lawful to abort a child.

I'm all out of characters and I look forward to your response!
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting the challenge, much respected!

First, with all due respect for you and your Christianity, I believe that religion is irrelevant. As an atheist myself, I see no reason to follow what the Bible tells me - or you - to do. But this debate is about abortion, so let's not turn it into a religious one.

You stated that kids need to stop hooking up with their friends. Are you implying that abstinence is the only method of preventing pregnancy? This might have been the case a few centuries ago, but in today's world we have alternative methods; condoms and birth control pills, for instance. I am aware of neither having a 'success' rating of 100 percent, but both are very safe. So, if two 'kids', as you called them, both know what they want and are aware of the risks and methods of protection, why not let them practice safe sex?

To your other point with your friend's grandparents. While as I do see your point and admire your friend's commitment and act of love, I still have to disagree with your argument when translated into "abortion terms". I think both you and I can agree on the fact that a, say, 80-year old woman differs from a 3-month old fetus. Abortion happens before birth, not 80 years after it. That is exactly what I mean by "ending the child's misery before it starts".

Today's medicine is developed enough to provide painless termination of pregnancy; the unborn fetus will not suffer. It is hard to pinpoint when human life starts, but I wouldn't call termination of pregnancy 'killing'. The child is unborn, after all.

Lastly, your point, "stop hooking up"... I'm going to use my girlfriend as an example. We have an active sex life, and I speak for us both when I say it's not "hooking up," but rather an ultimate act of love. And yes, we use protection, which, again, has a 'success' rate close to a hundred. We both are in a situation where we couldn't raise the child, but I don't believe abstinence is the only solution.



I had no intention of turning this into a religious debate - I was just letting you know where I was getting my morals from.

There are definitely ways to not have children when hooking up- I"ll grant you that.

"Why not let them practice safe sex?"

Safe sex most likely will turn into more" I speak from the experience of several friends. Safe sex can also fail. Plus, most kids do not practice safe sex. I know there are many who do but most people think that"s it"s useless.

How does an 80 year old woman differ from a fetus?

Size - The 80 year old woman is larger than the fetus. So, if something is larger than me, I should be killed?
Development - The fetus is not as developed as an 80 year old woman. But does that mean it should be killed? If so, I can kill kids with autism because I"m more developed than they are.
These are just two simple ways about how the grandma differs from the fetus. But do either of those ways justify killing?

You mentioned that killing a fetus is painless. Does this make okay to kill it? A gunshot through the head is painless - does that mean that it isn"t cruel?

I completely understand about you and your girlfriend - I didn"t mean to disrespect you. But even pre marital sex isn"t a great thing. But I think where"re getting off point"

Should abortion be encouraged? No. Abortion barely differs from murder. Plus, most abortions are done because of a selfish act by a young woman.

Abortion shouldn"t be illegal (Because of rape victims) but it should definitely not be encouraged.

Debate Round No. 2



"Safe sex can also fail. Plus, most kids do not practice safe sex."

I see your point. However, consider the following: Let us assume a woman is capable of childbirth between the ages of 15 and 49. This includes around 72 million females in the USA. Of these 72 million, around fourteen percent (~10 million) are between the ages of 15 and 19 [1]. Of all abortions induced in the USA, seventeen percent are induced by women between the ages of 15 and 19 [2].

See? We can't blame the teens of being too careless. After all, they don't have significantly higher abortion rates than non-teens. 17 percent of abortions induced by 14 percent of the population, that's balanced.

"If so, I can kill kids with autism because I'm more developed than they are."

You might be more developed than autistic kids, yes, but they are still people with life experiences, memories, friends and aqcuaintances. A fetus has none of the above, unless we count the mother and the father - if he's around. After all, memory development starts around the age of three [3]. If you can find a three-year old fetus, then I can agree with you. What is more, unless you're a vegetarian, you probably accept the killing of animals for meat. Isn't this just as brutal? I mean, it is killing a living being, after all, something you seem to oppose.

Also, most abortions, actually up to 90 percent, are performed during the first trimester [4], a time during which a fetus could possibly not live outside the woman body. Can we really call the fetus, who isn't capable of developing memories, let alone live, a person? No. It is alive, yes, but by no means is it living. There is a difference between life and living, as well as between being alive and being a person.



the_streetsurfer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by the_streetsurfer 3 years ago
Thank you very much for being fair and awesome. I thank you for your understanding. I will just make a quick rebuttal.'s_life_being_at_risk

According to those stats, (They were the most detailed) well over half of all abortions could have been avoided by the mothers taking responsibility. That is my main point. People in general need to think before they act.

Finally, a fetus isn't EXACTLY like a human baby but it's pretty darn close...

Think of a caterpillar. If I step on a caterpillar, am I killing a butterfly? Not directly. But I erase all chance of a butterfly forming. Technically, killing a caterpillar is like killing a butterfly. Abortion is similar. If you kill a fetus you indirectly kill a child.

Thank you for a fun debate but most importantly thank you for being flexible. You're an honorable person.
Posted by OskarKarlsson 3 years ago
@the_streetsurfer oh okay, so I'm not the only one then... If time expires, you could post your argument in the comment section, maybe?
Posted by the_streetsurfer 3 years ago

It has taken my about 30 minutes to post this comment... I'm having serious trouble with this website. Something about vb<x>script? Anyway, It won't let my upload new arguments or anything. Just to let you know.
Posted by ZenoCitium 3 years ago
@Geogeer: To be honest, I do agree with you but I don't believe there is support for this argument medically. I had read some of the arguments you made in a separate debate and I have been meaning to commend you. I have not seen a more convincing argument against "cessation of help". Thanks.

Biologically: Yes, life begins at conception (as you proved in the other debate). At conception there are living cells that are human.

Medically: In order to be deemed alive there needs to be breathing and blood circulation. We can all agree that cells are not medically alive. Otherwise, getting a bad sun burn would be considered homicide. An unborn baby's heart begins to beat within only 18 days of conception.

Legally: On top of meeting the above requirements (clinically alive) the person has to have enough brain function to provide life support. With regard to the unborn child, the term viability is used. An unborn baby's brain is responsive as early as 8 weeks although viability is considered to be at 28 weeks.

I see definition of life as fairly malleable to the user. It can be twisted to support either pro-life or pro-choice. To me, life begins at conception because life is so precious and so rare that we should do anything and everything in our power to preserve it and foster it. The belief in God and that life is God's gift is not required. We know through science that life is rare. We know through our practice of medicine that life is precious and fragile.

On my comment below: I was mistaken. At least the argument for life at conception includes the biological definition. The argument for life starting at birth is completely unfounded.
Posted by Geogeer 3 years ago
@ZenoCitium - That life begins at fertilization is scientifically true and fundamentally the only reason that abortion should be illegal.
Posted by ZenoCitium 3 years ago
Also, maintaining that life starts at birth is extremely problematic to the entire argument. This is as unsubstantiated as maintaining that life begins at conception. Current abortion law doesn't even hold this to be true.
Posted by ZenoCitium 3 years ago
@ street surfer: Don't forget that pros position is that abortion should be encouraged. Since he left no exceptions his position is applied to all scenarios. He has only pointed out the obvious scenario involving rape but you can challenge him on other scenarios. Make sure his arguments are pro encouragement and not just pro acceptance.

The points about contraceptions are off topic but I'm confused why pro has discounted abstenese. It's the safest method and it has a 100% success rate. A relationship can be loving, healthy and fulfilling with abstenese.
Posted by the_streetsurfer 3 years ago
@A341 Exactly.
Posted by A341 3 years ago
Why would you ever encourage a killing? Even a morally justified killing should never be encouraged.
No votes have been placed for this debate.