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


Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 5/29/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,273 times Debate No: 16765
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




It is my own belief that abortion is wrong. I would like to debate it, since I know there is people that think this is right. I will prove it inhumaine. I am Con against abortion. While my opponent will be Pro for abortion.



Abortion: the deliberate termination of a pregnancy.

Now I know that Cliff probably saw this coming a mile away, but if we are to argue that abortion is immoral we will need to agree on an ethical viewpoint from which to judge abortion. But since I do not want to waste rounds I will resist my urges and simply define moral as humane.

Humane: having or showing compassion or benevolence

Burden of proof

The burden of proof will be shared equally between my opponent and I. His burden will be to show why abortion is inhumane and cannot be humane and my burden will be to show that abortion can be humane.

I assume that arguments will begin in R2 and as such I will pass the debate on to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1

First, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting my challenge.
Now to the debate.
Notice the link above, it has in it 7 different types of abortion.
I would also like to use this round to explain why I am against abortion.
I think it is inhumane, mainly because it is the termination of life.
There are adoption centers worldwide, why not go that route, rather than abort an unborn child?
Also, while the fetus is unborn, I still believe that it can feel pain.
A lot of people use rape as a scapegoat for abortion. Raped or not, the child that will be aborted is innocent.
"My body my choice" A lot of people use this as well. It is your body. If you feel the pleasure, why not the pain?
Bringing a child into this earth is a purity within itself. Why taint purity with evil?
The above is why I am against abortion. I will use the next round to counter debate my opponent.


It seems as though my opponent has completely ignored my call in the first round for him to state what meta-ethical viewpoint and specifically what normative ethical viewpoint he would be arguing from. This happends all too often in abortion debates. The opponent will assume a certain ethical system without mentioning what it is in the first round and then refuses to justify it. I hope that we will not run into this problem and we can get on the same page as to what meta or normative ethical viewpoint my opponent wiill be arguing from.

My opponent provides a few slightly weird reasons for why he is against abortion. I will list them below and refute them.

I think it is inhumane, mainly because it is the termination of life.

I agree that abortion is the termination of a life. However we are not arguing over whether or not abortion is taking a life or not. We are arguing over whether or not abortion is wrong. Why is killing wrong? I will give my opponent the next round to clarify on this because we do have 5 rounds to kill.

There are adoption centers worldwide, why not go that route, rather than abort an unborn child?

My opponent here presupposes that killing an unborn child is wrong. Again, why is this wrong? Also, please do not argue from "common moral-sense". If you argue that something is wrong, bring justification.

Also, while the fetus is unborn, I still believe that it can feel pain.

You believe that it can feel pain or it does feel pain? If it does than bring evidence as to this assertion and then show why inflicting senseless pain is wrong.

"My body my choice" A lot of people use this as well. It is your body. If you feel the pleasure, why not the pain?

I don't really understand what my opponent is saying here. I assume he doesn't actually understand the libertarian concept of complete self ownership. If he would actually like to argue on whether a woman owns her body and anything in it, we can do that. However if I am simply misreading your intention than please correct me.

Bringing a child into this earth is a purity within itself. Why taint purity with evil?

Again, my opponent presupposes that 'evil' exists as a natural property. If he is to argue that abortion is evil than he should show why it is evil and then show why it being evil makes it wrong.

Now as per the rules, I retain half of the burden of proof in this debate. I will show below why abortion can be a humane practice, even while denying any such thing as moral truths.

Premise 1: A humane action entails showing compassion or benevolence.---Definition of humane.

Premise 2: When calculating whether an act shows compassion or benevolence, one must take into account the consequences of that action and the motive of the agent performing it.

Premise 3: A scenario can possibly arise where aborting a fetus shows compassion to the fetus(mercy killing). Ex. A child who the mother knows will be born with a genetic and terminal disease. In this scenario, the mother would be doing the compassionate thing by putting the fetus out before it can suffer.

Conclusion 1: Abortion can be humane.--- From P1, 2, and 3.

My opponent has certainly not upheld his BOP in this debate. Seeing as I have though I urge a Pro vote.

Debate Round No. 2


I would like to apologize to my opponent for over looking (normative ethics) and (meta ethics). I will explain now.
Meta Ethics: I believe that abortion is wrong. It is wrong because it is the destruction of a mistake. Human beings make mistakes to learn from them, not to run away from them in fear! A child is pure. My opponent asked why is killing wrong. Let me put it this way; if we were to kill as we felt neccessary, the whole world would be dead. This is why there are laws to prohibit such things. There are adoption centers worldwide, why not go that route, rather than abort an unborn child? My opponent asked for justification. I am not sure I understand what my opponent means. I don't believe this needs justifaction. Why not just adopt the child out? It is more human than just killing the fetus needlessly.
Normative Ethics: Here are my practical reasons for being against abortion: 2.Dilatation and Extraction, D&X, (Partial Birth Abortion) A.The baby is delivered feet first. The head is left inside the birth canal. A sharp instrument is used to puncture the rear of the skull at the base and the brains are sucked out. Once dead, the baby is fully delivered.

3.Dilatation & Curettage (D&C) A.Abortive procedure where the abortionist inserts a curved knife into the placenta and cuts the baby up into pieces before it is suctioned out. Done in the first trimester.

4.Dilatation & Evacuation A.An abortive procedure where an abortionist inserts a pliers-like instrument into the uterus. The abortionist then grabs whatever part of the baby it comes in contact with. Then, by twisting and pulling, the baby is dismembered, killed, and pulled from the womb.

5.Mifepristone or Mifeprex (RU-486) A.A pill taken after conception that stops the absorption of Progesterone, a hormone necessary for sustaining pregnancy. Taken with misoprostol, it causes the uterus to contract and eject the newly conceived baby.

6.Partial Birth Abortion A.An abortive method where all the baby is delivered except the head. With its body outside of the vaginal canal, the doctor then uses a sharp instrument to pierce the back of the skull of the baby and scramble the brains, killing it. Then the baby is fully delivered.

7.Pregnancy Reduction A.An abortive method of reducing the number of babies in the womb (twins, triplets, etc.) by injecting a poison into the heart of one or more of the babies while still in the womb.

8.Saline Amniocentesis A.An abortive method where a highly concentrated salt solution is injected into the placenta. The baby takes the salt into the lungs as well as swallowing it. After more than an hour, the baby dies and the mother delivers the body a day or two later.

Above are many different procedures for aborting a child; I posted this link in the round prior. I was pre aware of these facts before I put the link. This is my practical reasons why abortion is wrong.


It seems that my opponent has misunderstood what metaethics and normative ethics are.

Metaethics: the attempt to understand the metaphysical, epistemological, semantic, and psychological, presuppositions and commitments of moral thought, talk, and practice.[1]

This basically has to do with the nature of ethics and whether we can know them. So when I ask my opponent what metaethical viewpoint he is arguing from, I am asking whether he thinks objective moral facts exist, whether they are individually subjective, culturally relative, knowable, unknowable, ext. He has not elucidated on this or provided justification.

Normative ethics: examines standards for the rightness and wrongness of actions[2]

So examples of it would be Kantianism, utilitarianism or hedonism. If my opponent argues that abortion is wrong, he must show that A.--Moral facts exist, B.--We can know these moral facts, and C.--The act in question violates a justified normative ethical system of values.

My opponent tries to defend his claim that killing is wrong with this statement:

if we were to kill as we felt neccessary, the whole world would be dead.

This really doesn't answer my question. My opponent derives a prescriptive statement(you should not kill) from a descriptive statement(if you kill, the world would die?). Where is the bridge between these two conclusions? Even if I concede that the whole world would die if we kill as we please, how does that actually make killing wrong?

As to his "normative ethics", he does not provide a reason why any type of abortion is wrong. All he does is describe some different types of abortions and how they are performed. He seems to already assume that certain things are wrong without providing a bit of justification. For the rest of the debate, he simply provides different ways in which abortions are performed as "reasons" for being against them.

My opponent has not nearly upheld his BOP. Nor did he even try to refute my own reasoning. We can take this as a concession and thus I urge a Pro vote by defualt.

Debate Round No. 3


Gensai forfeited this round.


Extend all arguments and refutations.
Debate Round No. 4


I concede my opponent, clearly has me bested. She has a better arsenal, and a better argument. While I am still against abortion, and always will be! My opponent has beaten out my challenge, thus deserves the votes for this debate.
I look forward to more debates with this person.


My opponent has conceded the debate. He has endorsed a Pro vote and I will not fight him on that point. So to voters, vote Con. I only wish we could have had a more interesting debate. And btw at my opponent calling me a girl, I'm a guy.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by KeytarHero 7 years ago
Good thing we don't necessarily vote per the debaters' urgings. :P

Merda, if you're looking for a debate on abortion, I'd be willing to debate you on it.
Posted by Merda 7 years ago
I meant Vote Pro!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 7 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Gensai forfeited, but even so, Merda was using stronger arguments. I agree with Gensai's position, but simply holding a position will not convince your opponent or anyone else. Pro did not offer justification for his position and did not rebut Pro's arguments.