The Instigator
Con (against)
7 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
7 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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,408 times Debate No: 30962
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




Hi. Today I have decided that I would debate on the topic of Abortion. I personally believe that Abortion is wrong and immoral. Anyone who would like to accept this debate may.

1. I would like to begin by pointing this out. First off, abortion is legal, in someplaces even if the fetus is considered grown enough to be a baby. However, if you were to kill someone who was pregnant, you would be charged not only for the murder of the woman but also her baby. Or a double homicide. This suggests that legally, a unborn fetus qualifies as a human. Then why is abortion legal?

2. Abortion is morally wrong, I will prove this by explaining how a fetus, qualifies as a human
1. The unborn entity, from the moment of concept, is a full-fledged member of the human community
2. It is morally wrong to kill any member of that community
3. Every successful abortion kills an unborn entity, a full-fledged member of the human community
4. Therefore, every successful abortion is morally wrong

3. Scientists have concluded that infact life begins at conception. I am going to ASSUME that this is true for my next statement. If it were true that life begins at conception, then if you were to have an abortion it would legally be murder,

Murder: The unlawful killing of someone
Killing: To deprive of life : cause the death of

So in this case, assuming the Pro agrees with my definitions, abortion is killing. Which causes me to believe that abortion is wrong. Why? Due to the fact that you are "Depriving of life".

I look forward for someone to accept this and respond to my arguments.


I will write my refutations numbered according to your arguments.

1: "If you were to kill someone who was pregnant, you would be charged ... with a double homicide."

As a matter of fact if a women is killed during pregnancy it is not considered a double homicide. Although many states have laws that create a harsher punishment for the murder of a pregnant women the fact that it is not considered a double homicide anywhere actually lends evidence to the fact that legally, a fetus is worth less then an adult. [1]

2: "The unborn entity... is a full fledged member of the human community."

(I will assume that the 1-4 following 2 are sub-points of point 2.) The fetus is definitely not a full fledged member of the human community at the moment of conception. Even a child is not a full fledged member of the human community, as he is under the care of his parents and not yet a productive part of society. And to suggest that a zygote, without a nervous system or semblance to a human whatsoever is a full fledged member of society is ridiculous. It is less alive then an animal.

3: "Life begins at conception, therefore abortion is wrong."

I agree, the life cycle of a human begins at conception. But I disagree with your definition of murder. From a moral, if not legal, standpoint, murder is not the killing of a biologically human creature. If you where to kill a human with the mind of a rabbit, would it be the same as killing a person? Of course not, it would be the same morally as killing a rabbit. Therefore, I would define murder as 'to completely destroy the mind of an individual.' This only can be brought about by physically killing a person. I would agree with you that abortion is killing, but so is eating meat. The question is, is it murder.

Closing point: Note I am arguing specifically in defense of 1st and 2nd trimester abortion, becuase your opening arguments where against all forms of abortion.
A fetus, without any memories, mental development, or even the capability for rational thought is not a person. Yes, it is a human, but that is not enough to make it inherently wrong to kill it. It has no identity or sense of self. To potentially ruin an unprepared mothers life in order to save something that is incapable of even desiring salvation is simply morally imbalanced. Consider an animal. It is much less intelligent then a human. It is incapable of rational thought. In a way, abortion is morally equivalent to killing an animal. But even an animal has an established 'presence' in the world, with memories and experience. So one might argue that abortion is even less immoral than killing an animal.

Simply proving it is human is just not enough.

Debate Round No. 1


Sorry for the late response, I'm only 17, so school kind of gets in the way,

Anywho, I will now refute my opponents points.

1. "If you were to kill someone who was pregnant,you would be charged...with a double homicide."

It is infact considered to be a double homicide. For example, the homicide of Laci Peterson, was considered a double homicide, due to the fact that her unborn baby died with her.

I rest my case.

2 and 3:

First of all, you said that When I was concepted, I would not be a human? You are wrong. Years ago when I was a baby, I was still me, just in a different form. You stated yourself, that life begins at conception. Secondly, I am somewhat disgusted by your rabbit point. That is like saying someone with a mental disability isn't a human because their mind is different? No, that is still wrong.

My rebuttal against his closing point: A baby has no memories, so killing it is morally ok? Nor, when first born does it have any rational thought. A baby, in its very first days, has no sense of self.

Lastly, do not use the "Having the baby will ruin my life, I'm not ready to be a mother" Sorry for over reacting, but that really pisses me off. Sorry for the profanity, but is abortion the only way not to be a parent? Is adoption illegal or something now? After birth, there is no problem with putting a baby up for adoption. So that takes out the rape excuse as well.

I once again apologize for my above profanity, and I look forward to my opponents points.


Yeah, school can make these things hard. either way, you still had two days I think, so. s'ight.

1: "It is considered to be a double homicide."

Alright, killing a fetus does count as homicide, but only in 27 states, a minority. And even those have separate punishments for the killing of a fetus as apposed to the killing of an adult. Either way, a fetus is definitely not legally equal in all respects to an adult. [1][2]
Of course the news articles called it a double homicide.

2: "You said when I was concieved, I would not be human?"

No, I agreed that at conception you are a human. I said you are not a person, as in an individual with an identity and sentience. And my point still stands that because a fetus is not a person, and because it is not a member of the human community, the standard moral framework for murder just doesn't stand.

3: "Your (my) rabbit point"

Well, I wouldn't say that your average mentally handicapped person is as stupid as a rabbit. And although I don't want to get into this debate, I suppose I was asking for it. If you you had a person who was mentally handicapped to the point of being comparable to a rabbit, what exactly makes it wrong to kill them? Why does their human DNA automatically give them value? I maintain that it is the mind of the victim that determines the morality, not the body.

4: "My (his) rebuttal against his (my) closing point"

First off, I stated that I was arguing for the most part in defense of 1st and 2nd trimester abortions. An early fetus is different from a baby in that it has an undeveloped nervous system and likely no real brain. It doesn't even the potential to use rational thought. A baby may not, but it has the immediate potential. But there is something differentiating a baby from a 3rd trimester fetus. A 3rd trimester fetus is not learning, a baby is. Perhaps a baby isn't quite making memories, but it's experiences still contribute to it's personality. A fetus does no such thing. Finally, I'll ask the same question I did before. What gives a baby inherent value? I'm not advocating infanticide or anything, but your argument is worthless if you can't show a newborn baby has value in the same way an adult does.

5: Do not use the 'Having the baby will ruin my life' argument"

Actually, I agree. But I still advocate the women's right to decide a baby will ruin her life.


Debate Round No. 2


I would like to thank my opponent for their well thought out arguments. I will now try to rebuttal them to the best of my ability.

1: "It is considered to be a double homicide."
I am pretty sure we are finished with this after my opponents last argument. I ask that they no longer mention this. Thank you.

2: "You said when I was concieved, I would not be human?"
Maybe so. You have to understand, that I was still me, while my body was developing, so was my mind. So technically, my brain was working, and though just barely, my brain started processing thoughts from the very beginning that it was able to. Also, even though I was a fetus, without an official identity, I would probably be recognized as a boy or a girl. This debate is about abortion in general, so this does include third trimester abortion. So killing me in this stage would be considered "Killing a boy".

3:"Your (my) rabbit point"
What exactly is wrong with killing them? Even though their IQ is one caparable of an animal. It still has feelings, and a personality. He or she would still morally count as person. Are you suggesting that we should judge one's value as a person due to their ability to contribute to anything? You said that it is the mind, well. Like I said, the brain, even if the person is handicapped, still harbors a personality. So therefore, it would be morally wrong.

4: "My (his) rebuttal against his (my) closing point"
Sorry for the misconception, this debate covers abortion in general. Furthermore, I can show that a baby has value in the same value an adult has. I would like to point out something.

1. Think of someone, anyone you look up to.
2. They were a baby once.
3. I rest my case.

If the baby has no value, what is the point of keeping any baby? To keep the human race going of course. Without babies, or fetuses for that matter, the human population would cease to continue naturally. The above instructions, by the way, suggest without the baby, or the fetus, that person wouldn't exist, so any value they had would be non existent.

5: Do not use the 'Having the baby will ruin my life' argument"
A right? Like I said, how would it ruin her life? I am not disagreeing with you necessarily, but I would like an explanation. I said that even if they could not support keeping a baby, there is nothing stopping them from putting the baby up for adoption.

New point
You don't have to argue with this but it is something I pondered. What if there was a fetus that would have grown up to cure cancer, or AIDS, but was aborted? This is not an argument, but I'm anxious to see what other people think about this. Since we are talking about value and all.

This is my argument for round 3. I look forward to my opponents rebuttal.


1: "We are finished with this after my opponents last argument."

I'll take that as a concession.

2: The development of a fetus

Although a fetus does have some form of a brain as it developes, it is not self aware, and has very little thought until after birth. An animal's brain can 'prcess thoughts' to, but thats not enough to grant them all the right to life. It's not util the 32 week that a fetus could even really be said to think, becuase thats when repid nueral development occurs.[1] [2]
Your second bit, describing abortion as 'killing a boy/girl' is simply emotional appeal, in reality, having a gender does nothing to add or subtract from the morality of abortion.

3: The rabbit argument

Sure, perhaps a person with the mind of a rabbit has emotions. Even perhaps apersonality, although I would think this would require the ability to interact with others. The problem is, if this applies to the person, then it applies to a rabbit to. Just becuase an animal is capable of feelings, which it surely is, does not mean it is unacceptable to kill it. And no, I do not consider a persons ability to contribute to society the determining factor in their worth. I alrealy said it is their ability to reason that I consider the determining
factor. Emotions are important, but without the ability to apply reason to
them, they are worthless.

4: The value of a baby

What I meant was that you have the burden of proof, so that if I show that even just 1st trimester abortions are acceptable, then I win, although most of my arguments stand for abortion in general.

Now, onto you demonstration as to why a baby has value, your argument is thouroughly flawed. The fact that a baby might be valuable to society doesn't show anything. Yes, everyone was a baby once. Just like everyone was once a sperm and an egg. would you suggest that every single wasted sperm is the equivilent of murder, bucause it is a failure to create a person? You can't give a fetus value just becuase it will eventually become a person. You also said that babies are neccessary to keep the human race going. but it's not as if every single person is going to get an abortion. That's unreasonable. It also suggests that we are morally obligated to have as much sex as possible to keep humanity alive, which doesn't seem right.

About your thing at the end, I would like to simply point out that hitler to was once a fetus.


Debate Round No. 3


This is my final argument, and I will not make a new point, and will just rebuttal the original points. I ask my opponent to only rebuttal. I also would like to thank my opponent for accepting and putting out such a well thought out debate.

1: "We are finished with this after my opponents last argument."
Not a concession, you agreed that it did in fact count as a double homicide. Which I would like to point out, means a double murder. So, even if It only happened once, the killing of the fetus, in that case, counted as murder. So legally, my argument is completely valid, and not a concession in anyway.

2: The development of a fetus
Considering that this is my debate, I am going to assume the fact that animals were put here, in order for us to consume. However, humans are here to live. Instead of disagreeing I would like my opponent to rebuttal this point as if the previous statement is true. So, there is a difference between a human and an animal. Second of all, it's brain starts to construct it's personality as soon as it is formed enough to do so, as I stated.
"Killing a boy/girl" is not emotional appeal. Murder, as defined in the webster dictionary as
"the crime of unlawfully killing a person "
a boy or girl is a person, and therefore, killing them would define as murder. So, while not abortion in general, this would cross out 3rd and 2nd trimester abortion.

3: The rabbit argument
As I said, Assuming that an animal is made for the sole purpose of consumption. "I already said it is their ability to reason that I consider the determining
factor." So a baby is not worth anything, even after birth? Because they can't reason?

4: The value of a baby
No, because sperm is not a human, it creates humans yes, but is not a human itself. A fetus is a human, as you accepted. I never said we shouldn't reproduce like crazy, I said we shouldn't stop what we are wired to do. Aborting a baby is wasting a lot of resources.


1: Murder of a pregnant woman

Well I proved that in a majority of states that killing a pregnant women is not considered double homicide, according to the links. You proved that there are certain cases where it is considered a double homicide. But my point was that fetuses must be considered separate from adults, legally, because of the fact that only in certain states is it considered a double homicide, and those states have a separate set of laws dictating punishment from regular murder.

2: The development of a fetus

You can't just state "animals are here for us to consume" as if it where a fact. And you said "put here", suggesting creationism. This isn't supposed to be a religious debate, but you can't just invoke god's will and say that I can't use some argument.
You also said that because murder is the unlawful killing of a person, and a boy or girl is a person, then killing a fetus with gender is murder. But the problem is, the definition says unlawful killing. If abortion isn't illegal, then by definition it isn't murder. Not only that, but simply defining something as murder doesn't automatically make it immoral. Trying to prove something is immoral just by calling it murder is emotional appeal.

3: The rabbit argument

Again, this argument relies on the assumption that animals where 'created' for the purpose of consumption. And I don't think that a baby is worthless just because it can't reason. I just don't think it has nearly the inherent value an adult has, because it has established no memories and has no real thoughts, therefore destroying it would be destroying much less then in the killing of an adult. It also seems you failed to refute my argument at all, all you have done is pose a question.

4: The value of a baby

You said that "everyone was once a baby, therefore babies have value." But my point was that everyone was once a sperm and egg, and that just because they have the potential to become a person doesn't give them the same value as a person.

Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Xerge 5 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 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: Counter somenerd224
Vote Placed by somenerd224 5 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: natoast is a baby killer