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

Abortion should be legal.

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: 8/22/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 727 times Debate No: 78922
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Today I will be arguing that abortion should be legal.

The way this debate will work is this:

R1: Opening statement
R2: Defend your opening statement.
R3: Rebut opponents defense.
R4: Closing statement

Thanks to whoever accepts and good luck.


On a personal note I am pro choice, but that doesn't mean I don't argue for the other side of various things I don't believe in. There are various reasons for doing so, like challenging your own beliefs as well as being better informed of the other side. I also find sometimes that I am better able to argue against a position if I have argued for it because by arguing for something I often find myself asking how would I counter this line of reasoning, in other words you learn the weakness of the other side better.............or maybe that is just me.

For the purpose of this debate I will argue that abortion in the general sense should not be allowed. Notice the emphasis on the general sense. With most rules there will be always be exceptions, the most common one for the pro life/anti choice position regarding abortion is to save the life of the mother.

Also I will seek to negate Pros arguments that seek to justify abortion, that is to say justify abortion on demand with none or very limited restrictions.

I look forward to Pros opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1


First I want to specify that, although I believe abortion should be legal, it should only be when something is wrong with the pregnancy. I feel this way because when the mother to be's life is in danger due to a failed surgery, and infection, or any other possible failure of pregnancy, it is not right to force her to live out the pregnancy, if she feels it is not worth the risk.
In 2013, approximately 289000 women died due to failed childbirth, according to says that almost 4,000,000 babies are born each year, meaning that in 7% of births, approximately, the mother dies. That is a lot of mother's deaths.
However, the number of failed pregnancies that kill mothers compared to the number of deaths to mothers during abortion is very high. According to a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about 1/100000 (or .001%) of abortions resulted in the mothers death in 2010.
Based on a 2010 study by Britain's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, most fetuses can't feel pain until at least their 26th week. Most abortions take place before week 13. Only 1.4% occurred after week 21, which means that even less than that occur where the baby feels pain, according to the website
Based on a University of California at San Francisco study, women denied abortions became 3 times as likely to be below the poverty level than women granted access to abortions. 76% of the people rejected access needed unemployment benefits, compared to the 44% of women who received abortions. Also, people rejected access to abortions due to having an abusive partner were over twice as likely to become victims of domestic violence.
This is my proof that says that abortion should be legal. Thanks for reading, and it is now your turn. Good luck.


Argument in support that abortion (generally) should be illegal.

1) Absent justification we should not allow humans to kill other humans
2) Abortion is a human killing another human
3) There is an absence of justification for allowing abortion
C) Therefore we should not allow abortion

Defending P1) Absent justification we should not allow humans to kill other humans

Hardly controversial and for most people if not all something that is already assumed. If not on principle at least for pragmatic purposes.

Defending P2) Abortion is a human killing another human

What is human and thus what is not in this argument is defined on scientific dna/biological grounds as Peter Singer explains..."It is possible to give "human being" a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to "member of the species Homo Sapiens". Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being." [1]

Defending P3) There is an absence of justification for allowing abortion

It should be noted here that justification has more narrow scope than may appear to be the case at first glance. A reason/explanation in of it's self is not sufficient to establish justification. For example it could be said that a reason/explanation that a cop shot the black man is that black man was not respectful to the cop thus the cop decided to make an example out of him and shoot him.

Although a reason/explanation most people would not consider this a justification for a killing in such a circumstance..........well why not ? Because a justification when it comes to human beings killing other human beings requires a high burden and we don't give out free passes for killing for any ole reason. The justification has to be able to hold up to scrutiny.

Pro brings up some points in order to provide justification for allowing abortion, I will argue against them in more detail in the next round.

C) Therefore we should not allow abortion

I look forward to Pros reply.


[1] Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 85-86.
Debate Round No. 2


gocubsgo25 forfeited this round.


Oh no a forfeit.
Debate Round No. 3


First off, sorry I forfieted. I completely forgot about the debate because I had lots of work to do. Anyway, for my closing statement.

Abortion should be legal. Mothers to be are dying from failed pregnancies, and because of abortions, they are surviving. If we take that freedom away, mothers will die, leaving the baby with a very bad chance of survival. Abortion equals good!


Recall the argument I put forth that being.......

1) Absent justification we should not allow humans to kill other humans
2) Abortion is a human killing another human
3) There is an absence of justification for allowing abortion
C) Therefore we should not allow abortion

[Abortion to save the life of the mother]

Con points out abortion where it is necessary to save the life of the mother. I did alluded to that before, granting in such a circumstance that abortion is justified, this does not justify the MAJORITY of abortions where the life of the mother is not at risk.

As such this does not justify abortion in the general sense.

[Financial considerations]

Con brings up some financial factors that apply in some cases of those seeking abortion such as being below the poverty line or on unemployment payments. But how exactly does this justify the killing of a human that takes place at abortion ? this link was not made.

Most people don't allow poverty as a justification for allowing a human to kill another human so why make a special exemption here ?

[Inability to feel pain]

Con says..."Based on a 2010 study by Britain's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, most fetuses can't feel pain until at least their 26th week"

But this sets a dangerous precedent, what exactly is being put forward here ? that it is ok to kill a human as long as the human to be killed will not or can not feel pain ? Consider those who can not feel pain..."Congenital insensitivity to pain is a condition that inhibits the ability to perceive physical pain. From birth, affected individuals never feel pain in any part of their body when injured. People with this condition can feel the difference between sharp and dull and hot and cold, but cannot sense, for example, that a hot beverage is burning their tongue" [1]

Can we kill such people on the justification that by killing them they won't feel any pain ?

The point here is that even if killing will not result in pain this is insufficient to justify said killing. As such Pro can't use lack of pain as a justification for abortion.

[Closing comments]

I contend that Pro has not being able to justify abortion outside of a very limited circumstance (life of women at risk) and thus has not being able to justify that abortion should be allowed in a more general sense.

I thank Pro for the debate.


Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Kathleenann 3 years ago
I do not believe abortion should be legal. With that said, it must be understood that the pro and con arguments have rarely even been about the same thing. It could also be said that I am both pro choice and pro life. To be pro choice is to have the choice of the determination of one's own body but to be pro life is to be supportive of the life which is carried within that body. This is where the argument diverges. When life starts has never been legally determined. There is a lot of reference to it but it is not a clarified point. My personal belief is that life must be protected. If it is illegal to take a human life after birth why is it legal to end it before birth? The unborn fetus is as genetically human as you and I. It meets all of the requirements of life. It grows, has physical sensation and has a heart beat and brain waves. It has been purported by psychology that some pre birth experiences have an affect on the post birth psyche. The heart beat begins before pregnancy is even detected yet you can legally have an abortion up until the moment of birth.

I am fairly liberal on a number of issues but on this issue I must be against abortion even in cases of rape and incest. Why? Because if I am pro life for the above reason then I am pro life because I support life. It is not a morality issue for me. To be against abortion except in cases of rape and incest is the worst kind of fence sitter. You offend both sides of the issue. You are either for life or you are for choice otherwise you are a moralist of the worst kind.

In order to challenge my point of view you must first give some indication that the unborn fetus can in no way be a living human being. I hear a lot of people refer to it as a blob of flesh that does not resemble a human adult. If this is the case why is it not legal to kill infants and small children? I understand that women should control the destiny of their bodies but at what expense?
Posted by robertacollier 3 years ago
It should have been legal when your mother was around.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ax123man 3 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: this debate was strange. In round 2 Pro narrowed the scope of allowed abortion drastically in the second round so that it essentially agreed with Con's position given in round 1! I'm not sure how Pro wins from there, but Con carried on with good arguments anyway, plus Pro forfeited. Arguments and conduct to Con