The Instigator
Con (against)
1 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
16 Points


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: 3/8/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 723 times Debate No: 21839
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)




I'm con for abortion completely agents it.
abortion- the termination of a poignancy without the mother having high risk of death.


I accept the definition of this debate, to clarify the resolution, we will be looking at both the moral and legal aspects of Abortion or whether it is

A) Moral


B) Legal

Now onto the Pro case, on why abortion is legal and moral. The Pro case will be laid out based on the points above

1st- Morality

Morality is defined as a "Code of Conduct that would be put forth by all rational persons" By the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[1]

Personhood- [3]
Murder- The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought [2].
Is Abortion truly murder? Well, to answer that question, we must look at what allegedly is being murdered during the process of an abortion.
A Fetus is NOT a Person, A.K.A a human being.

A-Is a Fetus a human being?

Fetus are essentially completely reliant on their host, in which they reside. Only that one host can truly take care and sustain that Fetus. This characteristic represents that of an organism that is inhumane, in that human beings do not rely on one human being, and only that human being, for sustenance. Simply saying that Fetus will grow is a weak argument on the grounds of abortion, because we look towards what is technically going to die. In no way at any point of an abortion is a human being going to die. A Fetus, can clearly be distinguished from a human being, and as such, Abortion cannot be considered a murder.

B- The Right to life of a Fetus

There is a major contradiction in giving a Fetus a right to life, anyone who does is completely undermining the host from which it lives. As stated in point 1, Fetus' do not share any characteristics of a human being, they reflect a parasite in fact, one that sustains itself solely off a host organism, and continues to grow, while feeding off the host. By giving a Fetus the right to life, the mother's life is basically worthless, it must sustain a parasite it does not want to sustain, and this is indeed an infringement upon the rights of the mother. To better state this, i will Quote Joyce Arthur- "The free exercise of one's moral conscience is a fundamental right in our society. And since pregnancy entails profound physical, psychological, and long-lasting consequences for a woman (it is not a mere "inconvenience"), her freedoms are significantly restricted if she is forced to carry to term." [3]

C-The Choice of abortion (Quality of Life)

Has anyone ever stopped to ask themselves why women have abortions? Does the quality of life mean nothing to Pro-Life people? A Moral outlook on abortion shows the many reasons women choose to have abortions. Not only may it be unwanted, but many times the Rape victim or the Soon-To-Be Single mother cannot successfully sustain their baby. The Fact is, Quality of life is just as important to the mother as it is to all of us looking at this issue from a 3rd person perspective. If a mother is living in such harsh conditions where she can barely make a living herself, why would she want to bring into this world a being which she must watch suffer unless cared for, and then diminish the already bad quality of her life as well? No Justification exists for allowing a being into this world if it WILL SUFFER. On top of that, the it should be the mother's choice based off of her right to life, and her quality of life. Why do we make the innocent pay? By Diminishing a mother's life, and allowing a baby to suffer, we as human beings are inherently immoral. This point in no way advocates unwanted pregnancies, but a pregnancy cannot be planned, and no specification has been made on how women become pregnant in the first place. An easy assumption is through unwanted means such as- Forgetting Birth Control or the much more gruesome- Rape.

2nd Legality of Abortion

A- Roe vs Wade (1973)

The U.S. Supreme Court stated that abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state, legalizing abortion throughout the United States. There are multiple reasons for this.

1) Forced Permittence
This may sound silly, but a burden is a burden, just as a man walking into your house and using your bed without any permittence is unlawful so too is having to carry an unborn organism that feeds off of you. Just as that man eats your food and takes all of your stuff, so too does that unborn organism. The truth of the matter is, just like a house is owned, so is a body, whatever is inside that house or body is what is permitted to be inside based on he owner.To make things clearer- Whatever exists inside my body is at my disposal, any organism is inherently infringing upon my rights by taking up space in my body. Just as a Tapeworm is an unwanted organism in your body, so too is an unborn fetus, unwanted by the mother, yet the mother is forced to carry it.

2)Infringing upon the Quality of Life (Sound Familiar?)
This point may sound familiar, and it should, because it applies to both legality and morality.
Quality of life is everything, many philosophers argue the quality of life is what defines life, without happiness and joy there is no point to life. If a women was forced to carry a burden which she knew she could not carry, and had no way of disposing it legally, this would be in reality torture. We cannot justify denying the rights of Freedom, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. By not allowing for a woman to have an abortion, we are deterring and infringing upon that woman's rights.

B- Fetus' Rights [3]

Do Fetus' Have rights? Let's say we somehow gave an unborn Fetus all the constitutional rights an American Citizen was given. Could it truly exercise any rights at all? What would be the point? Giving Rights to an organism that cannot use a single one is meaningless. By Giving Rights to the Fetus or Zygote, a weighing factor would be put into play. Who's life would be worth more then? The Woman or the Unborn Fetus that cannot exercise a single right given to it? This is completely unfair to the woman, not only is this Fetus' life given weight equivalent to hers, it's also given rights it can't even use, and it isn't even alive! Logically, we cannot give an organism rights if they cannot exercise those rights.Thus it is legal for a woman to have an abortion on the grounds of rights.

Thank you for taking the time to read this debate, i wish you all good luck and thank my opponent for an intellectually stimulating debate. I hope for the best :)


Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank my opponent for his argument, and using great resources. I'm new to this Debating site and I only wish to sharpen my skills, because I'm pretty bad.
1.Rationality is can mean many different things. Let's use it the way you showed me.

Let's take a rational person and tell him/her that you could terminate a pregnancy, and lose the life of a (the way you would say as potential) child that has not had a chance to experience the life that THE MOTHER gave him due to having SEXUAL INTERCOURSE. Any rational person would say that the natural reason why we have sex is to crate life, as in reproducing humans. So rationally you should not be having sex if you are not willing to face what would naturally happen to your body.

2.You are correct on the fact that by definition abortion is not murder. My point is that it is just a morally wrong as murder. When you murder a human you are terminating a life that may have had further potential. It's going to the same way for abortion, but the fact that it is a fetus. When you kill a fetus you terminated all its potential. Terminating what a human could have done or could be doing is in my opinion as a rational person the largest factor in that witch murder is wrong. Any rational person would say that would be a reason of why murder is wrong.

3.To a mother a fetus is as important to her as her own life. The mother's body is willing to give up her own nutrients for the life of the fetus or embryo. The mother's immune system will valiantly allow it to continue its life. The mother's body will contain it as her own due to blood, and D.N.A. similarities.

I partial agree with that quote from Joyce, but I don't think that nine months of a bad life should give you a reason to terminate a pregnancy. Any rational person would say it's morally wrong to commit suicide. Suicide is a permanent and unnecessary solution for a temporary problem. So compare it to abortion, it is a permanent and unnecessary solution for a temporary problem.
4.One thing you forgot to motion is adoption. I don't know what goes though your head but just because a women give birth to a child doesn't mean she must take care of it.
Adoption- an alternative that is right.
1.You are giving a child to a family that is ready and looking forward to raising a child.
2.Some couples love one another and wish to have children together but due to their inability to have a baby for whatever the reason. You would give a couple that chance.
3.Instead of the life that you crated being disposed of in a hospital, you can let it live his/her life and give yourself a reason for ever getting pregnant.
4.Most adoptions happen just after they are born, and it is not difficult to put a child up for adoption.
As much as I would like abortion to be illegal it most likely won't happen. I want to say why abortion is wrong and that you should use it as an option. Yes a fetus does not have rights like us because we as a society have not accepted a fetus as human. When a human is pregnant with a fetus it is called a human fetus. It seems to me he acts like a human fetus is not human and it's just the same as any other primate fetus, you act like there is no deference.
Thank you for reading my debate, hope you read well and will come back with an argument that gets me working like that last one.
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam, 1961. Print
Beers, Mark H., and Robert Berkow. The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy. Whitehouse Station, NJ: Merck Research Laboratories, 1999. Print.


I thank my opponent for following the traditional debate format and attempting to refute Pro's arguments. Also, I'd like to take the time to say my opponent is not bad. Your refutations are very good, and well organized, which is alot better than many of the other debaters on DDO. Without further ado lets begin!

Judges, i will address his refutations, however before we begin i ask for some extensions.

1)Personhood- A and B. No refutation made on either of these. So clearly aff has already won the moral aspects of Abortion.

1. I'm sorry to say, but any motive, action, or goal in life may be to do one thing, but in fact may do another. Meaning Sexual Intercourse was originally meant to procreate, however the modernization of it has led to variations, and these variations involve pure pleasure, (Sorry for the vulgarity of this, but i must sight an example) The perfect example is in fact pornography. I have the perfect source to prove this [1] Dr. Michael Castleman took a study, in which 442 random people were asked why they have sex, equally from both Sexes. The top 20 reasons were laid out in the source, for both men and women. Neither of the top 20 involved procreation, just variations of pleasure. Thus your point 1 is wrong, rationally and statistically, women have sex for pleasure far more than that of procreation. Also, There is no such thing as 100% pregnancy. Just like there is no such thing as contracting HIV 100% of the time from sex. I could bring up the HIV argument of "Why have sex if there is a risk for HIV?"

2. This unclaimed "potential" comes with risks. Please judges cross apply Point C under my first Contention- Morality. This directly shows how the quality of life for both this "potential child" and the mother are lowered. This also shows suffering will occur between both Child and mother because the mother is unfit to have a baby, and because of that she must abort it.

3. Simple explanation- Con has no source showing moms who WANT TO HAVE ABORTIONS, care for their children. On top of that, you can't control your body. You cannot control your heart, lungs, or liver. You cannot control bodily functions that may occur, such as women having their period. This argument is therefore invalid. Also, cross apply my Point A under Contention 2 Legality. The "Forced Permittance" already disproves this entire Argument. Also, the Joyce quote by my opponent was thoroughly misinterpreted.

4. Adoption-
1) I need a source showing most parents put their children up for adoption when they are born, or shortly after. This doesn't have any impact in this round unless a source is given.
2) The women still has to have the child. I don't know if you've ever seen a woman give birth, but it takes a large toll on the women. [2] Women suffer so much pain from childbirth, that over 50% of hospitals in the United States use vast amounts of Epidural anesthesia just to calm them.
3) Do you think a child would enjoy an orphanage? Cross apply Sub Point C of Morality once again. My opponent fails to address the quality of life for both children and the mother. [3] The Hurdles to adoption are insanely rigorous for the child. Many times the child feels suicidal, or may receive horrible foster parents and the cycle starts over. It is a sad epidemic, adoption. People just don't care about these children, or where they go. You assume these kids will get good homes, but that's just not living in reality.
4) ABORTION IS LEGAL IN ALL 50 STATES IN THE UNITED STATES. Cross apply Roe vs Wade (1973), Sub point A of Contention 2 Legality of Abortion. Con has NO GROUND ON LEGALITY. [4]

Extend All of Morality and Legality. Con failed to address Sub points A and B on Contention 1 of morality, and the entire Contention 2 legality. Sub point C of Contention 1 was the only point focused on by cons arguments. This was successfully refuted by Pro. Pro has all the ground on Abortion, both Morally and Legally.


Debate Round No. 2


I'm sorry for not posting a full round. I congratulate my opponent in his what seems to most likely a win for him.
Thankyou for the debate I have learned allot.


I'm glad my opponent has learned alot, as i have as well. I thank my opponent for conceding and not forfeiting, i ask that my opponent be given conduct points because of his politeness and giving everyone the opportunity to judge. Judge off of all rounds, extend all points and refutations made in the third round. Thank you all once again and good luck to my opponent in his later debates!
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
I believe pro did good jobs enforcing his morality and is a fetus is a human arguments. All though both in my opinion false. Cons rebuttals to these arguments where poor and sourceless. Con's refutations where short and in my opinion not well organized or fleshed out. Pro did a good job showing a fetus is totally reliant on its host, therefore not fully human. Although that's a poor argument as well Con didn't refute this well. He then showed a fetus doesn't have rights, this too is true as currently they have no rights, con should have argued correct they have no rights under current law but ought to obtain rights, but he didn't do this, hence losing the argument. He then FF'd last round leaving her last arguments dropped therefore he lost. Although is he argue then she posted new arguments he would get conduct as she then had an extra 8000 characters of arguments, but since he essentially FF'd and she had 8000 more characters then him I tie conduct. Good debate Pro won though.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Mak-zie 4 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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded. However, I will give him a point for accepting his defeat. Pro creamed him in the other areas, though.
Vote Placed by WriterDave 4 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 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I do not see that Con actually conceded the debate, and so I will consider the debate on the merits. Con's arguments were simply not convincing, nor were they defended adequately. Many of his assertions were unsupported. Both debaters were polite, but both could stand to improve their spelling and grammar.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 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 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: comments
Vote Placed by lannan13 4 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con FF, Pro had better sources, he had all the sources.