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

Abortion should remain legal in the United States

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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/11/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,702 times Debate No: 37609
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (4)




NOTE: This is not whether abortion should be legal or illegal in the case of (x)

By accepting Con you are agreeing that abortion should be outlawed or illegal in all circumstances.

Legal - permitted by law or to allow the practice of

Illegal - Not permitted by law or to ban the practice of.

This is a shared BOP and the rules are as follows.

R1: Me : This is simply the outline of the debate
R1: Adversary : He will immediately start to build his/her case and establish his/her points.


R2: Me: I will build my case and establish points
R2: Adversary: This is his chance for direct rebuttals and rebuilding his/her initial contentions while offering his/her closing statements


R3: Me : My chance for direct rebuttals rebuilding initial contentions and my closing statements
R3: Adversary : He/she will simply write, no round as agreed upon


I always set debates up this when they are of this magnitude and with so much bias surrounding the topic, to make sure no new points are presented in the last round. I also hate drawn out debates, so this is relatively simple.

Offer your case, offer rebuttals, and then the debate ends.


*All persons will be referred to as he/him/his.

Premise I: Definition of a Living Human:

Before answering if Abortion is a violation of Human Rights, as I’m sure Pro already knows will be my aim, we must answer if the “Fetus” is a living human.

At conception, the Zygote is formed. Immediately it has 23 pairs of Chromosomes, to equal 46 Chromosomes [1:]. The DNA is human at this stage. Since a species is determined by its DNA, as scientist will take DNA from an animal to determine its species, we can determine that a Zygote and all following stages of the baby is Human [2:].

But is the baby alive? Biologists have built at least ten signs that something is alive, often displayed in lists of 7. The list is as follows:

With the exception of Reproduction, the baby supports each of the prior listed signs. As for being alive as a Zygote, how does one measure that? You can’t measure a single-celled organism using the signs of life given to multi-celled organisms. We must use the standards used by scientist to measure life among singled-cell organisms. Reproduction. If a cell performs cell division in the proper medium, it is considered alive, and one does not need to explain that a Zygote preforms cell division [9:].

If we consider the evidence, we must conclude that even at conception, the Zygote and all following stages of the baby is both 1) Human and 2) Alive.

Premise II: Declaration of Rights:

Person: n.

If we consider Premise 1, we must accept the child as a Person. This is made so in Article VI of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which says everyone must be considered a Person by the law. Let’s review the UDHR, which was both Signed and Ratified by the United States.

Article II
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

This Article says that everyone, regardless of anything that might make them different, is granted these rights, including those from Article VI and Article III.

Article VI
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

This Article prescribes everyone the right of Personhood under the law.

Article III
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. [13:]

This Article is pretty explanatory.

Argument I: The Human Rights of a Baby:

If we conclude that a Zygote is both alive and human, than it’s a living human. Being human makes it a person. Article VI says that the law must recognize the baby’s Personhood. Article III says that nothing that makes a human different may be used to revoke its rights as granted by the UDHR. Distinction is defined as:

    • 1. The act of distinguishing; differentiation.
    • 2. The condition or fact of being dissimilar or distinct; difference: [14:]
    • 3: difference or contrast between similar things or people: [15:]

Following the definitions, the UDHR grants everyone, regardless of difference, the right to Life and Security of Person. This means the child may not have his life took, a life Biology says he has since being a Zygote.
Since the DNA of the Zygote is different from his mother, they aren’t the same person. The Zygote is a separate human from the mother and is not a part of her body. Even Identical Twins don’t have truly identical DNA [16:].

Conclusion I: An unborn child is a human, and therefore has rights protected under the UDHR, including right to Personhood and Life.

Argument II: The Human Rights of the Mother:

The main right people use to support choice is Right to Privacy. This seems like a feasible right until you hold it up to logic. Since the Abortion includes the child as well, it’s not so “private.” Although that’s not quite my argument…

Even with the Right to Privacy, each city and town has many laws regarding parenthood. A mother cannot kill her child on the basis of ‘Privacy.’ The Right to Privacy also doesn’t allow a mother to let her underage son drink alcohol or stay out late. It also doesn’t allow her to kill another human outside self-defense even in private. The premise I’m getting at is that the Right to Privacy stops where the law starts. Even in private, a mother can’t commit unjustifiable homicide, and Right to Privacy doesn’t let a mother do whatever she wants with her child.

When is Homicide justifiable?

“2. It is justifiable, 1. When a judge or other magistrate acts in obedience to the law. 2. When a ministerial officer acts in obedience to a lawful warrant, issued by a competent tribunal. 3. When a subaltern officer, or soldier, kills in obedience to the lawful commands of his superior. 4. When the party kills in lawful self-defence.” –Legal Dictionary [17:]

“4. A private individual will, in many cases, be justified in committing homicide, while acting in self-defence. See Self-defence.” -Legal Dictionary [17]

Unless in self-defense, homicide is not legal for an individual. Since Abortion is homicide, and only homicide in self-defense is legal, only Abortion to save the mother’s life is justifiable homicide (I’ll discuss that later). Since the Right to Privacy doesn’t protect unjustifiable homicide, it doesn’t protect Abortion.

-Right to Privacy doesn’t protect Unjustified Homicide

-Abortion outside self-defense is Unjustified Homicide

-Right to Privacy doesn’t protect Abortion outside self-defense

But what about Abortion during Self-Defense? This is a conflict between two people’s Right to Life. The answer isn’t as simple as “the mother comes first.” The Declaration of Independence makes this clear:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” –Declaration of Independence. [18:]

The Declaration states that everyone is CREATED equal. The moment of a human’s creation is his conception. This means the mother and child are equal, so the mother doesn’t simply come first. It’s notably worth mentioning the Guttmacher Institute, a division of Planned Parenthood, records. The most current report (from 1998) show that only 2.8% of Abortions were for the Mother’s health [19:]. Making Abortion legal on the premise of saving lives is a bit unfounded.

Body Count

Without Abortion: 35,000 lives.

With Abortion: 1.2 million lives.

In fact, in the UK, only 0.006% is to immediately save the Mother’s life.

Between 1968 and 2011 (the latest year for which figures are available) there have been 6.4 million abortions performed on residents of England and Wales. Of these, 143 (0.006%) were performed under Section 1(4), ie where the termination is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman..” –The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health [20:]

But the number of Abortions in self-defense isn’t so important. The words of Dr. Alan Guttmacher (of the Alan Guttmacher Institute] might show more importance in this debate:

Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.” – Dr. Alan Guttmacher

In nearly all cases when a mother can’t survive a pregnancy, it’s not as simple as the child being the cause. In these cases, an internal or external force like cancer or illness is often the cause of the complication (or in half of all complications, the doctor’s fault [21:]). In the others, Abortion was usually unnecessary. This isn’t to say abortion hasn’t saved women at times, but many times there were other ways, and the few legitimate issues (such as the 0.33% in the UK) are not enough to warrant the legalization of Abortion. Rape and Incest also do not warrant it, as both together only account for 1% of all abortions. It’s questionable if Rape and Incest is reason for abortion though. Both of them only change how the child was conceived, nothing else.

Bodily Autonomy also does not apply, as the unborn child also bares that right. Since two forms of Bodily Autonomy are at odds, one must be voided, and it must be the one that bares the worst consequence (for the baby, death.)

Conclusion II: Overall, abortion violates the granted rights of the child, including his Right to Life, which is granted by the UDHR, and his Right to be secure in his person, since the threat to his person is far greater in Abortion than the thread to the Mother’s body without Abortion.

As seen from Arguments I and II, Abortion violates the Child’s Rights more than not having Abortion violates the Mother’s rights.

Debate Round No. 1


Note: I do not advocate or condone every abortion that happens, but what I feel is irrelevant. I am going to take you through you some logical processes to show why abortion should be legal.

This is not a debate about whether or not abortion should be legal in (x) or not legal in (x). We are debating if there are some circumstances that could possibly occur that would warrant an abortion. If there are some circumstances in which an abortion should be permitted, it should therefore be legal and allowed by law. My adversary is taking the stance that there are no circumstances in which abortion should be legal.

So now let me being with some of my contentions

Contention 1

Is a fetus a life or is it a human life.

I am not going to spend much time on this because it is overall irrelevant to some of the points I will be making. I would like to spend a small bit of time on this though, just to clarify some basic thoughts. I have just posted this topic to the challenge leader board, and I am writing this on word before my adversary posts his first round.

So I am quite sure he will spend a copious amount of time explaining that a fetus is in fact a life. I will not even contest this point; it in fact is a life. That point cannot be argued or disputed. The next logical question one may ask is whether or not it is a human life. This is a far more in-depth question. My adversary will surely spend some of his allotted words on presenting the fact that a fetus is a life at conception. Again this is not the underlying question. This is the basic process of thought in which most people would exhibit.

(A) A fetus is a life and it was conceived by a human, therefore the fetus is a person or a baby.

I think this exhibits some flaws in logic, because the next logical step that my adversary would take is that killing this person or baby after the time it was conceived would be murder.

Murder – The act of unlawfully taking an innocent life without justification.

So how do we define what makes us human. I would almost argue for the fact that the fetus would have to exhibit pain, feelings, emotion, and conscious. It must have some type of senses. If ending a life were considered murder, we could be put on trial for stepping on an insect. An insect is a life, and almost anything we can imagine is in fact living. This is in fact almost impossible to show and prove at what stage it develops these qualities, which is why it is such a controversial issue. This varies from state to state and is also a huge reason that late term abortion is banned. One of many studies shows this.

“Anand argues that because fetuses can respond to stress or other stimuli at 20 weeks, abortion after that point causes them "severe and excruciating pain." The bulk of the scientific literature on the subject, however, finds that the brain connections needed to feel pain are not in place until at least 24 weeks, which is also the earliest possible time a fetus becomes viable outside the womb. Anand's testimony has been used to justify state and federal laws banning abortions after 20 weeks; those efforts have passed in nine states since 2010.”

“Dr. Kanwaljeet "Sunny" Anand, a University of Tennessee professor of pediatrics, anesthesiology, and neurobiology who has promoted the idea that 20 weeks post-conception is the point when a fetus begins to feel pain. None of this evidence follows or aligns with almost any other scientific research done on this subject”

While a fetus may be a life, it does not start to develop characters that humans share until around 20-24 weeks. I do not need to spend much more time on this because as I said earlier, it is irrelevant.

Contention 2

Abortion in cases where it could danger a mother’s life

For the sake of argument, let’s pretend my adversary is right. Let us say that a fetus is in fact a living breathing person, and acting on abortion is committing murder. Now we have an entirely different issue. What happens in a situation where the mother could die from the pregnancy? If abortion is banned, the most obvious answer is that she will die. Whether this will or will not occur a majority of time is erroneous, but claiming that abortion should be outlawed all together would give no choice to the mother in this situation if it did actually happen. These are just a few facts on how many pregnancies can be fatal.

“Globally, an estimated 287,000 maternal deaths occurred in 2010”

“Of all pregnancies anywhere, 15 percent will have a potentially fatal complication. In the developing world, having a baby will be the riskiest thing a woman will do. “

Now there are a few ways we can look at this. If this is an early term pregnancy and we know for a fact, that if the pregnancy continued the mother would die. There is a big problem with this and it is cited and acknowledged by multiple people

(A) If the pregnancy continues, the mother will die. If the mother dies, the child will die.
(B) If the pregnancy is ended through abortion, the child will die, but the mother will live.

Now you face a dilemma. Either way the child is going to die, so the only just cause is to save the mother. That is one way an abortion should be justified and not illegal in all circumstances.

Now let us review a situation in which the baby could live if the mother would die.

(A) Having the child will result in the death of the mother, but the child can be saved
(B) Ending the Childs life would save the mother

Now there is a much bigger dilemma. A life is going to end either way, so we have to gauge the value of a life. There is no objective way to judge this. Imgaine if a robber breaks into your house and points a gun at your wife and newborn child. He then gives you the choice that one may live and the other may die. He even allows you time to discuss this with your wife to see if she is willing to die. This is a situation that surpasses common law because of the situation. Much like murder in the case of self defense. While murder is wrong, it is justified within the situation.

This is almost the same situation with abortion, with fatal situations playing the role of the robber. There is no way for anyone outside of that family to judge the value of a life. This is a difficult circumstance to be put in, but with the child having no way to respond in both situations, the only viable way to judge this is let the parents decide. In the case of abortion they have never seen this child, or have not developed the same type of connection in which the husband and wife have. Imagine if you are with a girl for 7 years, and at the age of 25 she encounters this situation. A good amount of people would choose to keep the wife alive or want their wife to stay alive. The main thing is, that they are allowed to have that choice. When my adversary is claiming, that there is no situation in which abortion should be allowed. He is taking his perspective of abortion and what he would do in this situation, and applying it for all situations and circumstances like this. This can and should not be done. In this type of situation, only that family has the right to choose the outcome.

Contention 3

Abortion in cases of rape.

Now if we can condone abortion in the previous situation, and say that we do in fact have a reason to allow abortion and end a “life”, let us go to the next most logical step.

Again imagine a 16 year old girl walking home from school. She is raped and gets pregnant. If we are not allowing her the right to have an abortion, we are essentially screwing up her life or even potentially killing her future. She had no say in what happened, because of someone else’s choice, she has to bear this child.

If we make it illegal, she is forced to bear this child for months. Suffer the pain and agony of going through this pregnancy. Endure the emotional and mental stress of someone else’s indiscretion. It could mess up her grades in school, and she could be held back. Even if she forced her to have the child, some states give the rapist visitation rights! That would be more of an emotional bullet.

Again this was not her choice to go through this pain for months on end, with the possibility of it messing up her future. In regards to this situation, it is her choice to do what she wants. If she wants to bear the child because of moral and ethical reasons that is fine. If she does not want to suffer through the pain and agony of pregnancy at such an early age, we should also give her the option to opt out. This was not her choice or was caused by any action of her own. It is her body, and we are forcing pain on her in which she did accept or welcome.

Some facts on rape related pregnancies that show common they are

“the national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. Among 34 cases of rape-related pregnancy, the majority occurred among adolescents and resulted from assault by a known, often related perpetrator.”

With it happening more often than we think, I think it is only acceptable that we give the woman the right to choose what to do in this situation. It is not our place to issue and objective commandment or law, saying that she must suffer for the mistakes of others. We all are not religious, and hold to such an ideology.

In Closing.

This debate is about one of two choices. First we can make abortion illegal regardless of all circumstances, and not have a viable option when extreme cases do arrive. Second we could leave the option on the table for certain situations that go beyond the norm. How often it may or may not occur should be non factor. If we make this illegal and take it away all together, we are putting people in impossible situations.



Rebuttal I: Human Life
Pro explains that being human is about pain and feelings, but it is not. As I explained, being a part of a species (Human) is about having that species DNA (Human DNA.) At conception, the zygote has human DNA, and is thus human.
Pro is confused about what makes someone human. He posts a more philosophical concept of what it means to be human rather than a science-bound argument of genetics. A Zygote is human, and no lacking senses change that. There are many humans without all their senses, and they are still human [1:]. Pro’s logic is flawed. Not having the same level of development doesn’t make someone less human. By the logic, a child isn’t human because it isn’t fully developed.
This isn’t about ending a life, but ending a human life. Stepping on insect life is quite different.
Pro’s argument simply doesn’t hold on to my prior argument on the issue.

Rebuttal II: The Mother’s Life
Much of Pro’s argument is a flawed generalization. The global death rate among pregnant women does not accurately represent the US death rate. With places like Asia and Africa, the ratio is grossly inflated. In the US, the numbers go between 15 for every 100,000 pregnancies [2:] to 21 [3:]. That means a 1 in 4,762 chance of death AT LEAST. This means owning a house is more dangerous (1 in 38 chance of break in.)[4:] Standing is more dangerous (1 in 246 chance of dying from falling down)[5:] compared to the 1 in 2,506 lifetime change (odds of death in pregnancy multiplied by the average number of pregnancies per US woman.)[6:]
An issue with aborting the child to save the Mother’s life is that 1) 15% isn’t to save the Mother’s life. Pro misrepresents the numbers. The 15% regards any harm that might befall the mother, including infertility, Anemia, and Placenta Previa. Most complications that lead to abortion aren’t life threatening, very few are, in fact. Half of all cases are the fault of the Hospital, and many can be fixed. Once you tear away all the less than justified excuses, you are left with a number too small to justify continued Legalization of Abortion.

“Between 1968 and 2011 (the latest year for which figures are available) there have been 6.4 million abortions performed on residents of England and Wales. Of these, 143 (0.006%) were performed under Section 1(4), ie where the termination is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman...” –The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health

And it’s certain many can be prevented through proper care.

“Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.”
– Dr. Alan Guttmacher.

With the number of Abortions occurring for the absolute preservation of the Mother’s life, without any other option, being so small, it can’t justify the number of babies who would wrongly die under misuse of the allowance. The number of babies wrongly aborted under the guise of safety would outweigh the appropriate use of such an allowance by too great a number. I will explain this better…
As convincing as the argument that women need abortion to save their lives is, it just doesn’t stand in the real world. The number of babies who would wrongly die under the misused guise of self-defense (the only legal form of Homicide, as my R1 argument made clear) would be higher than the number of mothers who would be saved. Since of the 15% that claim some form of harm, only 2.8% are for life-threatening issues, and much less are cases where the doctors couldn’t do anything else. Even at 2.8%, the number of innocent children dying from legalization would be twice that of mother/children lost because abortion wasn’t legal, no matter how much you attempt to restrict what counts as Self Defense, especially since (relative to the amount of time it takes) doctors earn more in an abortion [8:]. All it takes is the claim of self-defense, and abortion becomes an option for that 15% Pro mentioned.
This means legalization for Self-Defense alone would allow a greater number of innocent deaths, thus being highly counter-productive to its original purpose.

Conclusion I:
Pro’s statistics are both generalizations that don’t properly represent the US, and doesn’t stand up to the accusations he has made. The number of women who legitimately require abortion to preserve life is too small to overtake the unjustified cases where the allowance of abortion would be misused.

Rebuttal III: Rape and Incest
Both put together doesn’t even account for a percent of all abortions [9:]. You would end up with the same issue in Rebuttal II.
Appealing to rape isn’t really relevant anyways. The cause of conception does not revoke a babies human rights. It isn’t remotely relevant to if the child deserves the right to life and liberty. This was stated in Premise II.
Rape only changes the means of conception, and nothing else. Everything else is false dichotomy. Saying either it’s Abortion or [negative effect here] is a poor argument that plays off emotion. Saying that if the rape victim can’t get an abortion, she will either be 1) emotional hurt, 2) financially unstable, and 3) unhappy, simply fails to find support in fact. Pro’s assumption is only reasonable to people with no knowledge of what it’s like. His claim doesn’t match what people with experience say.
According to one of the only studies strictly related to the topic of rape and abortion, 75-80% of all pregnant victims chose to keep the child [10: Mahkorn, "Pregnancy and Sexual Assault.”] The idea that most rape victims will want/need rape isn’t supported. The idea that providing Abortion to rape victims is merciful is easy to sell, but actual rape victims disagree. Cases of victims who kept their child and regretted it are hard to find, while an amazing 78% of rape victims who got abortions seem to disagree with Pro’s position that Abortion is the best answer. Unlike when a choice isn’t the best but you can still make it if you choose, this is about homicide. If homicide isn’t the only good answer, then it shouldn’t be an answer.
Abortion is the Childs Rights being violated in place of better alternatives. Adoption would be the appropriate answer to issues like poverty, being too young, etc… If all of these cases were fixed through adoption, it would send less than 12,000 children into adoption each year, the equivalent of less than a 00.5% increase (50% increase every 100 years), outweighed by the increasing rate of adoption. Latest reports show that 88% of adopted children are healthy and happy. [11:]. This makes Adoption the appropriate answer.
Pro also brought up the rapist getting visitation rights. This isn’t relevant… A child must die to prevent that? Much better alternatives are available, like repealing such a law.
    • A leads to B. C leads to D.
    • B sometimes involves D.
    • Therefore A is to blame?
That’s terrible logic. C (laws granting rapists visitation rights) is to blame. Rape and Incest only affect the cause, not that creation, and any inconvenience, big or small, have better alternatives than homicide.

Conclusion II: There are too many alternatives for abortion to be an option. Pro’s whole case here is appeal to emotion and false dichotomy. Rape and Incest do not change the case at hand, only why we have to discuss the case.

Additional Argument: Right to Choose
The premise of the idea is that the mother would have the right to decide the value of her child, and rather or not it has the right to live. This premise is that the worth of the child is determined by how wanted it is. A child’s worth is not determined by how much his mother wanted him, and such an idea spits in the face as every Child Protection effort across the nation.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” –Declaration of Independence. [12:]

The Declaration of Independence says everyone is created (conceived) equal. The Declaration gives the child equality in worth, not the Mother.
The idea that the Mother determines one’s right to life goes against the UDHR, which says everyone, regardless of any difference of ANY KIND, has rights, including right to life, and nothing/no one may decide otherwise.

Final Conclusion: Pro has only brought up fallacies and unsupported claims. Most of his argument is False Dichotomy, Appeal to Emotion, and based off generalized information. None of his arguments hold up to my R1 arguments. Of his only 2 sources, the first only supports one of his claims, and the other is highly bias and unreliable in such a debate. If Pro brings up the age of some of my studies, I’d like to remind him that his NIH study is 2 years older than my oldest.
An unborn child is a living human even as a Zygote. A mothers “choice” does not exceed the Declaration of Independence or UDHR.
Rape and Incest only change the cause and not the creation or his value and rights. Too many alternatives are available, and making abortion legal for rape is simply against the Rights granted by the UDHR, regardless of ANY DISTINICTION of ANY KIND, even how he was conceived. We must remember the US ratified the UDHR, making it completely valid in the US.
Legalizing abortion in cases of the mother’s life actually being threatened will lead to more innocent deaths than if abortion wasn’t legal at all. For the preservative of life, it’s more productive to not let abortion be legal at all.
Debate Round No. 2


Rebuttal 1

Human Life

As I said this point was almost irrelevant to the points I was going to be making. I will however again touch on this briefly. Pro makes the arguments that because someone is lacking senses they are still considered a human. That is true obviously. The issue is not whether the fetus is lacking senses but whether the senses were ever developed to begin with. The same could be said about life, how could someone be living had they not been born?

Con also did not address what life essentially is. There is plant life, organic life, and multiple types of bio diversity. So the question is what separates a fetus from any of those categorizes. Just simply because it was conceived and is in fact living, does not entail the fact that it is a human.

This is essentially the same stance which I mentioned before

(A) A fetus is living and it was conceived by a human, therefore it is a living human.

So again the real question is when is the fetus actually considered a person? There are typical characteristics that most people possess. Some of which I mentioned in my prior round. They develop conscious, feel pain, have emotion, can react to situations, have awareness[1]. As I have shown most studies, put this at around the 24th week. So again the concept that it is in fact a human at the time on conception is impossible to answer. The question it self asks this from both a scientific and philosophical approach. We know the fetus is living, but I have also shown that it does not develop traits that are common among humans until at least the 24th week of pregnancy.

Rebuttal 2

The Life of the Mother

He says this

"The global death rate among pregnant women does not accurately represent the US death rate"

Which is true and I was not using this as an ad populm but rather to show how many pregnancies can be fatal if the right circumstances are not present. Granted the US is blessed with technology that can limit this number, it is by no means as small as Con makes it out to be.

He then says this

" In the US, the numbers go between 15 for every 100,000"

NOTE : This is a FATAL error on Cons part.

The statics that he presented are only in the case of ectopic pregnancies. Granted a good number of surveys you see will portray this number, it only looks at the fatality rates from this specific condition as well.

Ectopic Pregnancy : An ectopic pregnancy, or eccysis, is a complication of pregnancy in which the embryo implants outside the uterine cavity[2]

Take a look at the statistics involving only ectopic pregnancies.

"Ectopic pregnancy occurs at a rate of 19.7 cases per 1,000 pregnancies in North America and is a leading cause of maternal mortality in the first trimester" [3]

"Ectopic pregnancies are extremely rare and only result in a few deaths for every tens and thousands of pregnancies"

He is taking one condition and applying it objectively as the soul cause of fatal pregnancies. This is not even considering the pregnancies that result in complications when they are getting ready to deliver.

Even recent studies show that pregnancy is actually more fatal now than it was years ago

"The maternal death rate in the U.S. is creeping upward — to more than double what it was 25 years ago. Systems identifying deaths have improved, so how much the increase can be attributed to risk is uncertain. But experts agree maternal deaths are no longer declining, are underestimated, largely preventable and disproportionately affect certain groups."[4]

"The rate of severe and fatal complications during and after delivery have also doubled in the US within the last decade, according to a 2012 federal study"[4]

So even if we are going by the the smaller number here is the issue at hand. Con is delivering this from a greater of two evils perspective. There are a whole lot of abortions that happen, therefore since a small number of women actually die in the process, the most logical step is to outlaw abortion to prevent all the people whom are having abortions. By that argument he is justifying and telling the mother they should have to die regardless of her own thoughts and perspective. Remember this fetus does not feel pain, or exhibit thoughts, or conscious as I have already shown. Even if you take the most minimal number that could possibly occur, you are still telling 15 people whom actually have feelings, thoughts, and conscious that they have to die even if they chose not to for a fetus whom exhibits none of the qualities.

He also did not address the topic of early term fatal pregnancies which are ironically mostly ectopic.

(A) The mother has to have an abortion or the baby dies
(B) If the mother goes through the pregnancy the both die

He just simply put this on the fact that it only happens around 15 times a year in the US, so we should not worry with it.

He also wants to refer to self defense as an argument in favor of his stance. For the sake of argument let us say that aborting a fetus is committing a murder. Is there ever a circumstance in which committing a murder can be justified.

Justifiable Homicide - Rightful; warranted or sanctioned by law; that which can be shown to be sustained by law[5]

We are also by law promised the right to act in self defense.

"The right of self-defense (according to U.S. law) (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for civilians acting on their own behalf to engage in violence for the sake of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including the use of deadly force."[6]

So if we took pros stance and actually considered the fetus a human, we are promised by law the right to terminate it if it could endanger the mothers life. In the case of terminal pregnancies, the mother is in fact suffering and will die from it. Telling her she does not have the right to reasonably defend herself because it does not happen that often is a bold statement to make.

Rebuttal 3


"Appealing to rape isn’t really relevant anyways. The cause of conception does not revoke a babies human rights"

I was kind of mind blown when I read that. Again considering that this fetus has rights or is considered a human, that does not grant it authority over the person in whom it is dependent on. Con cites stats saying that 75 percent of of people whom are raped chose to go through with the pregnancy. This number is actually extremely lower than what pro claims, and was also cited from a religious source. I have minimal words left so I am just going to cite one line from that survey

"In contrast, not a single one of the 70% who had their children regretted it. [7]

This goes on to claim that every single woman whom was raped did not regret the decision. This was not a poll but a study done to show the actual number or so they claim. They are claiming every woman whom has ever been raped and had the child does not regret it which is an impossible statistic to actually know. I need not point out this based off illogical thought and speculation rather than fact.

44 percent of rapes occur to someone under the age of 18 [8]. Needless to say not giving them an option to opt out makes no sense. Con claims that this does not supersede the right of the fetus. Again in extreme situations of emotional distress and pain, we are allotted the right to defend our self and I have shown situations in which it is allowed by law. Just think of the fact if you had a daughter and she was raped and got pregnant. She did not want to go through with it but because someone thought it was wrong to have an abortion she must then suffer the consequences and deal with the emotional stress of having a child she is not ready for and even through the pain and distress of being raped on a day to day basis. This is almost an inhuman stance. He then claims that the rapist having visitation rights is irrelevant. As if it would offer no emotional distress whatsoever. If there is anyway to remove distress or pain from someone whom did not ask for it, that right should be granted.

End Point: Con finally says, make her go through the ordeal and suffer mentally then put the child up for adoption. Again this strips away her right to chose what to do with her body. She must suffer because of someone elses choice

In Closing

Cons entire argument hinges on the fact that more abortions happen than fatal pregnancies so abortion should be banned on a federal level all together. Again denying someone whom can feel pain, have emotional attachments, feel scared, and whom has family ties the right to stay alive is a horrid thought. The only condolence that we can offer her is that she will die knowing that she could possibly save her future child, whom still could die during the childbirth. I have no idea what kind of justification someone could give for risking two lives in any situation. Even if we took the ectopic pregnancies alone, we are denying 15 women the right to live regardless of their choice in hopes that they baby will actually be delivered alive. I sincerely urge anyone to use logic and be well aware that if we know we can save the mothers life, it is a far more viable option to terminate the fetus rather than kill the mother and hope the fetus makes it through delivery. However we look at it , it is her right to chose and her right to defend her body. If my fiance was lying on a table and could die from an abortion, I would want more than prayers. I would want a solution.

[1] Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self: The Making of Modern Identity, Harvard University Press, 1992.
[7]Sandra Kathleen Mahkorn, M.D. and William V. Dolan, M.D


no round as agreed upon
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
Okay. I'm confused still =.= What sources were unreliable?
Posted by GiantSpoonMan 3 years ago
Whoops I gave points to con when I meant to mark them as tied.
Posted by 2-D 3 years ago
Hell of a debate record for someone willing to defend creationism, no offense intended. that's just a difficult debate. Respect that you are defending it.
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
I sound like a whiner now XD

I wanted to ask what sources you noticed that were bad, Skiptic.
Posted by 2-D 3 years ago
Right sure, let me be clear: I brought up a personal, unrelated objection but I voted based on the stated arguments.
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
2-D. I don't mind the vote, but I don't believe you are supposed to vote based on arguments you can give, but on the arguments the opponent gave.
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
Hey Mikal, send me a friend request, I have a glitch with my profile and at times it won't allow me to add friends.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
at least you can format yours. My thing won't allow me to make it look pretty
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
Sorry about formatting. I spent an hour trying to fix it.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
O its fine, I am probably not going to even contest that.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Shadowguynick 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct is a tie, both were extremely courteous toward each other. Same with S/G. Arguments to Mikal for effectively disproving Con's arguments. Due to some more unreliable sources, and the inability to completely dismantle Mikal's argument. Remember that if one of Mikal's propositions stand, then he wins due to the fact that con must disprove all instances in which abortion should be tolerated.
Vote Placed by leojm 3 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 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had very good conduct in this argument. The sources were tied. Both used credible sources. Both had good spelling and grammar. But Con was more convincing in his argument. Thank you for this debate, I had fun reading it, and I learned couple of things. :)
Vote Placed by Skeptikitten 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to Pro. Con used several highly biased sources (religious sites), and once ironically dinged Pro for using worldwide statistics that aren't relevant to the US while simultaneously using multiple statistics from the UK himself. Arguments to Pro, as Con did not properly defend that abortion in the case of health risk to the mother wasn't justifiable- particularly considering that in those cases neither mother nor fetus can be saved and you're basically saying the woman should die just because she happened to have the misfortune to have a serious health complication in pregnancy for the sake of a fetus that can't be saved anyway. Con also cherry picked fatality rates by choosing a single complication and then applying it to all health risk complications in toto. Pro's point about justifiable homicide was also an excellent rebuttal of Con's claims and was never refuted.
Vote Placed by 2-D 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not demonstrate why I should consider a Conceptus, equal to humans. The prefrontal cortex, which forms in the third trimester, makes us distinctly human and not animal. I value and defend humans so I might help con on a debate that focuses on the termination of third trimester pregnancies.