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

Abortion should be illegal.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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: 12/27/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,256 times Debate No: 84337
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (29)
Votes (1)




My argument is that abortion should be illegal.

Why it would be murder: It's still alive when it's in it's mother stomach, it has the possibility of growing up to a child or a adult. Your still destroying a life if you do abortion,
it's not like it's a rock or anything, it is a human being in it's first organic stage. Let it grow and then it would have a personality, we convict people of murder for killing people why should this be allowed?

Why the fetus is still alive: How do we tell something is alive? Is it by personality? No it's by being able to function, a fetus is functioning by breathing( also many other things). So in that way it's alive.

My point is your destroying life and the possibility of it growing up and doing something positive for humanity.

Rules: First Round is for acceptance
No trolling.
Debate Round No. 1


Abortion should be illegal because it kills a life. How do we know if something is alive? We can tell because it's breathing, so it's functioning. True you could say a plant is functions, but a fetus has the possibility of growing up into a child or a adult. It could have a job, wife, and kids. Your still ending a life. A fetus is just a human being in it's first organic stage, think about it this way if your mother had a abortion when you were still in her stomach you wouldn't be here typing or looking at this screen. You would be dead, so having a abortion would just kill possibility for a human being. The harm could be to the rape victim, but that is why we have therapist. A life shouldn't end because one person doesn't want to have a baby.


Hello, my name is Forever 23 and I am going to argue that abortion must be legal.

First, I would like to define the terms in the debate, refute my opponents points and then proceed to state 3 of my own points.

Abortion- the deliberate termination of pregnancy in a human being.

Now onto refutation.

My opponent stated that the fetus is alive and therefore abortion is murder. However, you can only murder something that is alive. The fetus is not alive. [1]Lets first examine the fact that only 1.4% of abortions are performed before the 28 weeks at which the fetus is considered alive.

Next, something can only be considered alive if it fits more than half of the following criteria. [2]

Movement - The fetus moves

Respiration - The fetus does not breath

Sensitivity - It can not sense

Growth - The fetus grows

Reproduction - It can not reproduce

Excretion - Very rare

Nutrition - The fetus depends on the mother for nutrition

Clearly, the fetus fits 2, 3 at MOST of these criteria. That clearly proves that the fetus is not alive.

Now, I would like to establish the grounds of my own case.

Contention #1- The Black Market

Making abortion illegal will really make this situation worse than it already is by straightening the black market. Making something illegal does not choke the demand side. Women still need abortion but since it is illegal, they do it through the black market. The problem is that in the black market, operations will be unsafe and may hurt the health of the young women. Having abortion as illegal increases the amount of unsafe operations resulting in the women doing the abortions at the black market.

[3] In Mexico, miso is sold over the counter as an ulcer medication (in the U.S., it's only available with a prescription) creating the perfect conditions for black market sales in the United States. And while no abortion clinics remain in the Valley, the Mexican town of Reynosa is just across the nearby border. There, miso can be bought in bulk at Mexican pharmacies and snuck back over the border into Texas, where it's sold undercover at sprawling flea markets like the one I'm searching in today.

[4] 13% of pregnancy-related deaths worldwide are related to complications of unsafe abortion.

When something is legal, there is no point for the black market to exist. If abortion was to be legal, the black market would be substantially decreased or completely eradicated. The statistics above prove my point to the fullest extent. The women who receive abortions in the black market are desperate. They have no option to receive the safe operation so they have to take a dangerous path.

Contention #2- Abortion and Human Rights

One of the main human rights is gender equality.

[5]" A pregnancy to a woman is perhaps one of the most determinative aspects of her life. It disrupts her body. It disrupts her education. It disrupts her employment. And it often disrupts her entire family life. â€Å"[And we feel that], because of the impact on the woman, this … is a matter which is of such fundamental and basic concern to the woman involved that she should be allowed to make the choice as to whether to continue or to terminate her pregnancy"- Sarah Weddington

â€Å"If abortion rights are denied, then a constraint is imposed on women's freedom to act in a way that is of great importance to them, both for its own sake and for the sake of their achievement of equality .... and if the constraint is imposed on the ground that the foetus has a right to life from the moment of conception, then it is imposed on a ground that neither reason nor the rest of morality requires women to accept, or even to give any weight at all.â€Â" - Judith Thompson

O1- Abortion being illegal takes away gender equality from women.

O2- This therefore violates some of the most important human rights

Conclusion- If abortion is illegal, clearly, there is a violation of the human rights. Abortion would however, end the gender inequality and protect the human rights of women. If the human rights of women are to be protected, abortion must be legal.

A clarification of the right to life. My opponent may mention how the fetus has a right to life. The fetus however, is not scientifically living. Life does not begin at conception and therefore, the right to life does not apply to the fetus.

Illegal abortion violates another human right- the right to body.

Every woman and man have the right to their body and anything inside it. That means that the women have control over the fetus. The fetus does not have the right to body because it is not a living thing. The fetus is not a living thing and it depends on the woman. Therefore, the women can choose what to do with the fetus and whether she will get abortion or not.

[6] • Make decisions about our own health, body, sexual life and identity without fear of coercion or criminalization
• Seek and receive information about sexuality and reproduction and access related health services and contraception
• Have access to comprehensive education on human sexuality, sexual and reproductive health, human rights and gender equality
• Decide whether and when to have children, and how many to have
• Access safe abortion services in cases of rape, incest, when the life or health of the pregnant woman is at risk, or when there is severe or fatal fetal impairment
• Choose our intimate partner, whether and when to marry and what type of family to create
• Live free from discrimination, coercion and violence, including rape and other sexual violence, female genital mutilation/cutting, forced pregnancy, forced abortion, forced sterilization and forced marriage

Both the access to abortion and the decision to have children or not are engraved into the heart of the human rights. Illegal abortion takes away these prominent rights away from women.

O1- Illegal abortion takes away right to body and decision.

O2- The illegal abortion violates key human rights

Conclusion- Legal abortion would ensure human beings these unalienable rights and endow upon us a safer environment.

Defense of this contention- The fetus is not alive as proven by numerous statistics and therefore none of these human rights concern the fetus.

Contention #3- Concerning the Teenagers

At the age of 18-19, teenagers may end up getting pregnant. It is their fault, the opposition admits, however since that has already happened and denying the right to abortion to teenagers is immoral. The teens may have made a mistake but they can not be paying for it their whole life.

[4] 19% of teens who have had sexual intercourse become pregnant each year. 78% of these pregnancies are unplanned. 6 in 10 teen pregnancies occur among 18-19 year olds.

The teens have made a mistake but they should not be paying for it their whole life. If a woman is pregnant or has given birth, it may decrease her chances of entering a good college and getting an education. The teen years are the time when one can have an easier time learning and the only way to use these years productively is by if pregnant, getting abortion. In addition, a child can be a burden due to the expenses for a young mother.

The price to raise a child is [7] To raise a child born in 2013 to the age of 18, it will cost a middle-income couple just over $245,000, according to newly released estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That's up $4,260, or almost 2%, from the year before.

Family income- Pulls in $51,371 per year.

A young mother can not afford the child.

Vote con

Debate Round No. 2


Aaronyero's Pro response
Response to the fetus not being alive: If it's able to be moving by itself then clearly without a doubt it's alive. But let's say it's not alive, let's just say that. It would have still grow into a child and then a adult. At the point it would alive. Think about it this way, there is a seed that you can turn into sword. When it's just a seed it's not a weapon, nor is it a tool. But then when you plant it and it grows it becomes a sword.
Response to Contention #1: Good response, but we should teach the women that by doing so they would be killing a life or a seed that will grow into a life. If they want to end a life or again a seed that will grow into a life by going into the black market and getting a abortion then they are going to take that risk. Also black markets are already at their highest because of drugs. If we were to want to lower it we should make all drugs legal, bath salt included.

" 13% of pregnancy-related deaths worldwide are related to complications of unsafe abortion", well the person is trying to end a life, but it's horrible of them to die. But because of that less people would even try abortion because of threat of death, so both people live. If what we are taught from a young age or what society teaches us affect us really deep( even to a point where people will kill themselves because of " dishonored" or stuff like that) then I don't see why we couldn't convince humans when they are younger that abortion is wrong. Also black market doesn't rely on abortion, that is what they would least profit from ( even if we were to make abortion illegal) the black market wouldn't collapse, it mostly relies on drugs( but I will give you a free pass, because it has nothing to do with the argument). My point is that we should teach them( the female children) to stay away from abortion and tell them how it's horrible. Now you could say " what about drugs" well drugs are different, people do drugs because they are depressed or peer pressure from friends. I don't see how would this apply with abortion. Another thing, a person will only become depressed they don't get a abortion if we make not having a abortion a horrible thing.

Response to contention #2- I like what Sarah Wedding ton said, but it's true it will disrupt the body. But only for that time, but her education and the rest of her life? There is something called adoption . I don't know a lot, but as far as I am concerned the birth mother can choose to put the child up for adoption. Therefore saving a life and not having her to stop her education. Also about disrupting the body, most woman that get pregnant have to go through pain so it's not only rape victims or other things.

" Abortion being illegal takes away gender equality from women", I think you used wrong set of words, males don't have to go through pregnancy, so there isn't really any equality to begin with( going to give you a other free pass) I think you mean it would take away their rights. I guess you could say that, but to protect the life or possibility of a life just so you can feel better isn't a good thing. We limit some rights to protect everyone, we limit freedom of speech to stop people from threatening.

Conclusion: Now that we went through that I have a important question for the people reading this which is more important? The safety of women's rights to have a abortion or to allow a seed to grow into a human being, you can decide.

Vote Pro


Thank you pro for your wonderful refutations.

I will first provide some counter counter claims, counter claims and then introduce a new point.

So, to begin.

My opponent states how if it moves it is alive. However, that is an absurd claim because as I mentioned, there are 7 criterias that make something alive. In order to be alive, it has to fit AT LEAST 4. A fetus fits only 2 and therefore is not alive. Next, my opponent supposed that the fetus is not alive. He pointed out how it can become a child and then an adult. That is true. However, before it becomes a child or an adult, it is just a fetus or an embryo. While it is in those two stages, it depends on the woman. If it depends on the women, she has the right to do anything about its PRESENT being and its FUTURE. It may become a someone after the birth is given, but while in the womb, it is just an something that depends on the women.

Next, to defend by own points.

To refute my point about the black market, my opponent states how if the woman wants to end a life, she can take her risk and go to the black market. They mentioned how we should teach women strictly that life is life. My opponent continued to say that if abortion is illegal, less people would do abortion.

That claim however, is illogical and absurd. Looking at these shocking statistics will not make women decide not to get abortion. The demand never decreases. Only the supply does. If we straight out continue having abortion as illegal, then quite simply, women will still want it. No shocking statistic will change the way it works. They will go to the black market and get an abortion. The difference is that if abortion was legal, the operations would be much more safer. Death because of black market abortion does not pass any message to women. That 13% of women knew that the abortions could kill them (especially when done in the black market) and yet, they went ahead and did it.

Illegal abortion did not stop the Texas women from doing abortion either.

My opponent points out how the black market will not be eradicated since it mostly relies on drugs. With legal abortion, the black market for abortion will be eradicated. This point was never about eradicating the market. It was how no more unsafe abortions would be done.

Onto the next counter repudiation.

They responded to my second contention by saying that there is something called adoption. There is. What about the mothers who do abortion because of health risks? The actual carrying and giving birth may be dangerous to people with certain conditions that I will list below:

[1] Examples of some of the conditions that can complicate a pregnancy include:
•Heart disease
•Autoimmune disorders
•Certain other sexually transmitted diseases

Women who have any of these may experience problems wile giving birth should never be forced to do it. They most definitely have the right to abortion. Now, to proceed. women who get abortion probably know about adoption. There however is a reason that they did not give the children for adoption instead of abortion. And the government must respect those choices and reasons. Afterall, they are supported by the right to choice and right to body.

They also mentioned how I used the wrong words on the gender equality point. However, I am most definitely sure that I used the correct words. Men cant get pregnant. And if a woman does not want to have pregnancy, she has the total right to do so.

My opponent also states that

"I guess you could say that, but to protect the life or possibility of a life just so you can feel better isn't a good thing. We limit some rights to protect everyone, we limit freedom of speech to stop people from threatening."

And I will absolutely say that abortion should be allowed.

My opponent have completely obfuscated his own statement by saying that to PROTECT a life to feel better is NOT a good thing. That is concession since he/she is completely disagreeing with his own premise.

The opponent probably meant to say that to take the life to feel better is not a good thing. The women (many of them) do not feel better because of abortion. They feel depressed, sorrowfull etc.. However, they do it for a reason. The reasons can include health circumstances. About the women who just don't want to give birth, they have the complete right to do so for their own good.

In addition, that whole claim about how taking away possible life for comfort is immoral is completely subjective. In fact, it is cruel to not give women any choice on that matter. Since that possible life depends on the women and without her it would never be there in the first place, every single woman has the right to abortion.

My contentions were:

1. The Black Market
2. Abortion and Human Rights
3. Concerning the teenagers

Contention #4- A word about the mother.

The risk of death associated with childbirth is about 10 times as high as that associated with abortion.

That would mean that abortion is definitely safer than giving birth and pregnancy.

[3] 99% of all pregnancy related deaths occur in countries that have no option to an abortion. The correlation is evident between the lack of abortion and the maternal mortality. By the end of 2015, 303,000 mothers would have died due to the lack of abortion availability.

Debate Round No. 3


I will post my argument here, because of amount of characters I am allowed. Next time I will max it out when I do a debate.
Debate Round No. 4
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Peepette 2 years ago
RFD Cont. S&G tied, neither side had any glaring issues. Conduct tied, both conducted themselves in a respectful manner.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
I won't have time to vote on this as I previously hoped. Given that Balacafa's claim appears to hold water, I'd likely decided in a similar manner in any case.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: Hayd// Mod action: Removed<

1 points to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Con plagiarized.

[*Reason for non-removal*] While the other vote on this debate provides the necessary evidence to show that plagiarism occurs, this one does not. Since Pro did not state that plagiarism occurred, the voter has to do at least some work to show that plagiarism occurred in order to cast a vote like this.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
Type your comments here...*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Balacafa// Mod action: NOT Removed<

6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: I have read and am in the process of judging an abortion debate by the user known as famousdebater. Con's R2 plagiarizes almost everything with the exact same words and sources as this user. The spacing and font may be different but the copying of sombody elses work is bad conduct. Bad arguing. And since you copied his sources, you did not use them to support your arguments. You make arguments that are almost impossible to deny the use of plagiarism since there are so many specifics that have been copied. ie. famousdebater (in his debate(m says that abortion costs a familiy x amount of money. Then uses a separate source to compare this to the income of a family. You "coincidentally" found the same sources, made the same comparison, and used the same words as famousdebater. This is CLEARLY an act of plagiarism and I can point out more examples of this if requested to do so.

[*Reason for non-removal*] There are no standards that specify how users should respond to perceived plagiarism, and so long as the claim of plagiarism is well-supported, as it is in this RFD, awarding these points is not against the standards.
Posted by Balacafa 2 years ago
You have the same arguments, the same statistics, the same words (excluding a few examples where you have used synonyms for adjectives) and the same sources. If I had read yours and famousdebater's debates without knowing the debater I would have thought that you were the same person. You can't say that it is a coincidence that you found all of the same sources as famousdebater, thought of all of the same arguments as him and then typed it all up in almost identical words to him.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: Hayd// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: I wrote this at 1 in the morning, so it is brief. Pro says that a fetus is alive because it is breathing. Con defeats this by showing that it only meets 2 of the 7 characteristics of life, when its needs 4, thus not alive. Pro fails to show that unsafe abortions won?t happen if it is illegal, that?s what she needed to show to win the argument, but doesn?t, thus Con wins it. Pro fails to rebut the gender equality argument, she practically concedes it. She says that you can put it up for adoption, but this doesn?t take away the pain of childbirth. Pro also drops Con?s last contention. In the end, Con has rebutted all of Pro?s arguments, and all of Pro?s stand, thus Pro wins.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The vote sufficiently analyzes the debate to afford argument points.
Posted by Peepette 2 years ago
RFD: Pro contends that abortion should be illegal due to a fetus being alive, abortion is destroying life. With a pretense that it is not alive, it has potential life akin to a seed, and as such abortion is a retroactive killing since there is a potential for a child/adult. Con rebuts that a fetus falls short on meeting criteria that defines life and counters Pro's cell theory. Con"s points have greater weight. Con contends that illegalization with increase black market demand. Pro rebuts that anti-abortion social indoctrination and global ban would lessen the need for black market procedures and pill smuggling, since it is not as lucrative as other illicit drugs. Con nullifies Pro"s supply and demand theory, stating demand will remain but, supply will lessen if made illegal, increasing the black market system. On gender equality: Con states it is a right to have control over body and is a human rights/equality matter. Pro rebuts that equality does not exist due to men"s inability to get pregnant; as such, CON rebuts that since men can"t get pregnant, nor have determination over a pregnancy, a woman should not be forced to be pregnant. Overall, Pro contends that abortion is a means for a person to feeling better, which is insufficient reason; adoption is a preferred alternative. Pro points out that there are mitigating circumstances that brings women to their decisions and choice should not be taken away. Overall Con"s points and counter rebuttals were stronger. S&G & Conduct tied, Con provided more substantive citations for the point.
Posted by famousdebater 2 years ago
*looks at Con's R2* Wow ....
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: Themeaman909// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con was very repetitive in a sense. She was not very convincing, and this is saying something since I agree with her (in a way*). She mentioned that the fetus was not alive several times, and this seemed as being very repetitive. She didn't counter the arguments so well for if the fetus was alive. Pro was concisive and made good arguments, even though I did not share their views. Their sources were about the same in reliability. * I believe abortion is wrong, but it should be legal because it is the parent's choice. And if the child is birthed, than it will be neglected and abused by the parents. It is wrong, but things get worse without its existence.*

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Conduct is not explained. (2) The arguments points are insufficiently explained. While the voter does reference a specific argument made by Pro and a response from Con, but the voter has to assess actual arguments made by both sides, whether through rebuttal or case construction, and they have not apparently done this for Con's points.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: RNG_REKT// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con points out why Pro is wrong, plus Pro has bad grammar.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) This isn't really an RFD, just a statement of the voter's view that Pro lost because Con made good points against him. The voter has to point to specific arguments and contextualize them in the larger debate in order to sufficiently allocate argument points. (2) S&G is insufficiently explained. Unless one side had such terrible S&G that their argument was difficult to understand, these points should not be awarded.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 2 years 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I have read and am in the process of judging an abortion debate by the user known as famousdebater. Con's R2 plagiarizes almost everything with the exact same words and sources as this user. The spacing and font may be different but the copying of somebody elses work is bad conduct. Bad arguing. And since you copied his sources, you did not use them to support your arguments. You make arguments that are almost impossible to deny the use of plagiarism since there are so many specifics that have been copied. ie. famousdebater (in his debate), says that abortion costs a family x amount of money. Then uses a separate source to compare this to the income of a family. You "coincidentally" found the same sources, made the same comparison, and used the same words as famousdebater. This is CLEARLY an act of plagiarism and I can point out more examples of this if requested to do so.