The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
2 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: 11/26/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 765 times Debate No: 41243
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




I am challanging Mysterious Stranger to debate on Abortion with myslef opposing it.


I accept and look forward to debating you.
Debate Round No. 1


Ok for starters 1.3 BILLION fetuses have been aborted since 1980 making the abortion the greatest genocide in human history. It has be proven beyond a doubt that a fetus is totally alive and human. Not just alive, but it also already has a unique Dna code that will never be replicated again. The the killing of a fetus is not just killing a bundle of cells, but a complex human organism that will NEVER be replicated again. From a legal standpoint, infants are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is illegal to kill a newborn, unless it's in the womb. Aperently the uterus as the strange effect of taking away the rights of those withen. This is espicially evesent in the case of early births. If to women are in the exact same day of the 3rd trimester and one baby is born early, the docters will try despritly to save it. If the other women wants an abortion, the docters are paid to kill it. These two organisms are IDENTICAL but one is considered not human. All humans have natural rights including life. Murderer deprives one of the right to live their life. A fetus is human, just not as devoloped. That is like making murderer legal, but only the murderer of kids because they're less devoloped. Some contest it's a women's right to an abortion, I find this identical to a States "right" to own slaves. That is only the right of the powerful to deprive the weak of their rights.


I present my starting arguments.

Women possess a moral right to decide what to do with their body: Without abortion this right would be violated, they would not have the choice of what to do with their body if they were disallowed abortion.

a woman has the right to decide what she can and can't do with her body

the foetus exists within a woman's body.

a woman has the right to decide whether the foetus remains in her body.

therefore a pregnant woman has the right to abort the foetus.

Abortion brings to light the many ideas of human rights such as:

every human being has the right to own their own body, for instance, if a person has a parasite living inside them (not that I am comparing the foetus to a parasite, this is merely an example) the person would want the parasite removed from their body, the parasite is alive and functioning with the involuntary aid of its host, does the parasite being alive make it automatically able to remain living inside the persons body? The person would remove the parasite. The parasite being alive does not make it automatically outrank it's host in terms of life. The parasite is unwanted therefore it will be removed. The same applies for the foetus, it is the mothers choice of whether she would abort it or not.

a foetus is part of a woman's body. The foetus is not yet a human, it is merely a potential human. At this stage of development the foetus is a part of the mother's body, it therefore is the woman's decision to abort it. It is not murder if the foetus is not human.

therefore that woman has the right to abort a foetus they are carrying


I look forward to hearing from you.
Debate Round No. 2


My oppenet raises two points, fetoses are not human, and they mother has their rights. On the first note. What makes something human? Fetusess don't have arms and legs like we do, but that dosnt make you human. Animals have those. In fact nothing physical makes us human. It is our Dna. It is unlike any other animals and makes us special. It plans each little part of our body. Fetusess have human Dna, so why are they not human? In fact they have functioning BRAINS and HEARTS very early. How is this creature not human? Its Dna spells out a code for that of a completely unique human bieng. It really is a humane that is still growing its tissue and body. This argument is especially invalid in third trimester abortions when the fetuss is preety much a human child.Second, does the mother posses rights to the fetuss? Well while it is in her body, it is human condidering its complex and unique Dna. This organism is exactly like any human. Its body has just not totally formed. The bill of rights protects people from losing their life property or freedom without do process of law. You can't kill a us citizen with constitutional rights just cause its in the uterus. The constitution declares all federal law trumps state law. Any "rights" to murderer granted to any body are nullified by the bill of rights. In fact, in roe v wade, the court said if it could be proven that the futuss was alive, abortion would be unconstitutional. Any right created to limit the rights of others is no right. Segrigation in schools was no right though the south claimed it was. Any right becomes null and void when it violates the fundementalnrights of others. No amount of talk about rights and freedom can cover up the fact that this right is purchised with mass murderer. These new rights are only a way of the strong to oppress those with no voice. The only reason abortion is socially acceptable is because only the doctor sees the actual abortion. The women just knows shes no longer pregnant and happy. If the mother had her new born killed, it would be reported everywhere. However, the fetuss is hidden away so our society doent have to witness murderer that is justified because the childs arm isnt toally formed. We don't see the corpses. We just know that the stupid babies gone. The Dna of a fetuss paints a picture a complex individual. Maybe not physically, but genitacaly. This being will grow a heart and brain and its new nerves feel pain far more then any of us can. They are brutally sucked from their home and slaughtered before the idol of convience and barbarism. The rights of the constitution should be granted based on science and life, not on if that life has travled through a vagina. How stupid are we that we grant you your rights based on whether you have been through a Virgina! We should reject the trampling of the rights of infants and their pointless slaughter!


Argument two rebuttal: My opponent stresses that a foetus has a heart and a brain, though I will point out that the difference between a human child is too substantial overlook when determining whether a foetus is a human being or not. I shall use this example from a previous debate of mine to demonstrate. Take some bread being prepared by a baker, the bread is dough before it becomes bread therefore it is not bread. The dough is only potential bread, and it will not become bread until it has risen inside the oven. The dough is not bread, only potential. The same principle applies for the foetus, it is only potential human. It is not yet a human until it has been born.

I will finish this with another excerpt from the previous debate.

Mary Ann Warren, a philosopher, argues that in order to be considered a person, a being should have the following characteristics:

1. A developed capacity for reasoning- Which a foetus does not posses.

2. Self awareness- Which a foetus does not posses. They are unaware of their surroundings and their existence until they are born.

3.Consciousness and ability to feel pain- A foetus can feel pain at 29 weeks, they do not posses a consciousness.

4. Self motivated activity- A foetus is not properly aware of it's movements, they are not self motivated

5. Capacity to communicate messages of an indefinite variety of types- A foetus cannot communicate, people sometimes misinterpret kicks or movement with communication but the foetus is not aware of an outside world, or it's mother.

To prevent the debate from straying off topic I will present my final arguments and conclusion.

The right to abortion is vital to gender equality:
If a woman is denied to the right to have an abortion she is not only forced to continue the pregnancy to birth but also expected by society to support and look after the resulting child for many years to come (unless she can get someone else to do so). Such as social services. Lack of abortion would make women conform to the stereotypical assumption of a mother. Something that they may not want to adhere to. Another aspect of this is that women would never be able to be equal to men if they were denied the right to not be pregnant. Men do not get pregnant and are not restricted in the same way.

Women who were raped do not need to carry the rapists child:
A woman who was raped would not want to carry or raise the rapists child. I refer back to the my example from round one. If a person has a parasite living inside them would want to remove it. It was the woman's body to begin with, and a sub human organism should not have a say in whether it should remain inside the woman's body. The conception was forced so should the victim be forced to carry a child that if born, would receive no love from it's mother, or be sent into the care system from an early age. A life that is far from enjoyable for a child.

Backstreet abortions would be rife:
If abortion was made illegal people would still want abortions. Alcohol was made illegal during the 1920s, yet people still went to speakeasy's and purchased illegal alcohol. Marijuana is illegal, yet people still smoke it and can purchase it. Back street abortion clinics would deal with patients and would be more than likely to harm the mother. Banning abortion would not stop it, it would however be more dangerous than keeping it legal.


Women need free access to abortion in order to achieve full political, social, and economic equality with men,
women also need the right to abortion in order to have the same freedoms as men. Lastly women need the right to abortion to have full rights over their own bodies (including the right to decide whether or not to carry a foetus to birth) - without this right they do not have the same moral status as men, nor do they have freedom of choice or right over their own body.

Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Bullish 4 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was slightly more feisty, but I'll let it go on the conduct point. Both made spelling errors. ON arguments, Con states that there is proof beyond doubt that fetuses are alive and human, yet he doesn't present any other than saying it has a semi-developed heart and brain. Pro states that women should have the right to their own bodies, but Con points out that doesn't include killing a fetus. Con also dropped the DNA argument. Pro had sources.