The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 555 times Debate No: 49787
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




Abortion is, and should be legal in most cases. The right of the mother to make her own health decisions must always be protected. Making abortion illegal will not help to stop the procedure, it will just move the location to a more unsafe environment.


I will be arguing that abortion should be illegal. I would like to point out 4 major points why abortion is not right.

Some consider abortion to be murder since the being inside the mother is living. The definition of something living includes the ability to grow, which is exactly what is going on inside a woman who is pregnant. An abortion ceases the growing process, therefore ending the future life of a human being. This little being may not start off with a heartbeat or brain activity, but cells are still dividing and allowing it to grow...

Adoption is always brought up when people talk about aborting an unwanted child. The idea of aborting a child who would make a welcome addition to another family"s household is expressed by many pro-life individuals, including myself. There are tons of people who get rejected when they apply to adopt a child, which makes the idea of adoption seem far-fetched to these individuals. However, most people feel putting a child up for adoption is much better than going through an abortion.

The modern version of the Hippocratic Oath doctors take doesn"t specify that doctors are only to save people and make them better, but it is expected of them. The classic version of this oath actually has the phrase, ""I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy." and the original Hippocratic Oath states, ""I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion." Any mention of not performing an abortion has been taken out of the Hippocratic Oath, but not from the minds of people who expect doctors to save lives.

Women who go through an abortion have to forever carry that thought with them. They often wonder what their child would have looked like, acted like, and what type of person he/she would have been. No matter how strong a woman is, an abortion causes mental anguish that never truly goes away. At least with adoption a mother or father has the chance to see what their child has become.

Next round I will use as a rebuttal and closing argument, I await Pro's case.
Debate Round No. 1


Granted, you have made some claims that on the outside sound good, but when put together just don't add up. I would like to rebut all four of these claims, starting with the first one.

1.) Whether abortion is in fact ending a "murder" or not is debatable. Technically, a fetus may be considered a human when the woman is far enough into the pregnancy to where the fetus could be considered viable. Abortion is a complex and hot-button issue. It is an issue that effects the lives of millions of women and families abroad. I would argue that in order to ensure women their basic civil liberties, we must make sure that their right to engage in family planning be protected. Women do not make these decisions lightly, and we as a society must do everything that we can to stand behind women's decisions, whether it be to terminate the pregnancy or to have the child.

2.) Sure, adoption is absolutely an option. While you may personally believe that women should be forced into putting their child up for adoption if they don't want to keep the child, those of us who believe in a woman's right to choose would argue that this is also an issue of privacy, which is why a woman's right to choose was upheld in 1973 in the first place. I am relating the adoption issue to the issue of privacy. What you choose or choose to believe is your business, but what other people choose or choose to believe is their business. You said that "most people feel putting a child up for adoption is much better than going through an abortion. I guess you're forgetting that "most people" isn't everybody, and that other peoples views may be different than yours. Not to mention the fact that you made a baseless claim by suggesting that statement. Neither you nor I know the minds of "most people", because neither you nor I TRULY know "most people".

3.) Of course doctors are there to help save lives. My dad's a doctor, and he's saved a few lives. However, this issue is much more different than what you're making of it. This all boils down, truly, to the main disagreement that you and I have: I believe that a fetus is no more than a fetus until it is considered to be viable by a doctor. At the point where it is considered to be viable, the fetus must be given all basic human rights and civil liberties. You are essentially saying that you believe that life starts at conception, when the fetus is merely a glob of cells. You are also basically saying that you believe that a fetus is viable right at conception, which has to be why you, or some people are arguing that abortion is murder. I don't hold to the argument that a fetus is viable right at conception when the fetus at that current point is hardly a glob of cells. This isn't coming from me, it's coming from science. I am, however, opposed to late-term abortion, because I believe that science tells us at that point that the fetus is now an actual human.

4.) Once again, let your neighbor decide if she wants to endure what you know to be as "mental anguish", not you. This is, of course, if you guys on the "pro-life" side actually believe in civil liberties in the first place. Abortion is an issue of privacy and choice and basic civil liberties. No church, no state, no one, besides the woman, gets to ultimately decide which path is better for her. What may be good for you may be bad for another person, and what may be good for another person may be bad for you. I'm glad that I live in a country where women get to make these tough decisions by the side of trained doctors, professionals, their families, and of course, their consciences.

I conclude my opinion regarding this issue, which is based off of scientific facts and the basic human rights that were, and still are, and always will be, guaranteed to us by our founding fathers, and by God. Let freedom and liberty reign forever!


1) Yes, abortion does effect millions of people worldwide and every case is different, but there are few cases that would go as exceptions to what I am stating. If a woman decides that she doesn't want to have the baby AFTER the point of conception. If a woman did not want to have a baby, she could take other steps to lower the possibility of conception. Steps that cost a lot less than having an abortion and ending a life.

2) Yes I am aware that "most people" is not everybody. If it was we wouldn't have this lovely debate going on right now. However, why is it only the woman's choice in whether or not the child be kept or aborted. The father is equally responsible for the creation of the child so why does he get no say in the matter? Also, what about the child? Getting an abortion is killing an innocent individual who had absolutely no say in the matter. From the point of conception onward, the woman is now "walking for two" as some people say. She is not just walking for herself, she is also carrying a living organism which will develop into a human being.

3) I see that the point of when a fetus is considered alive or not is controversial in this debate, however I would like to point out once again that at the point of fertilization, the fetus has begun to divide cells and start on the track to develop limbs and organs. It is in this first hour of fertilization that is considered the beginning of a new life. Life exists when an organism starts the process of cell division to create a more advanced multi cellular organism. Nevertheless it is still a living human being whether it's a "glob of cells"-as you put it-or a nearly fully developed offspring. There are only two cases in which I would support an abortion, which would be in the case of a rape or the woman's health is in danger at that point. However, the woman can continue to carry the man's child and put it up for adoption or raise it in which would take a lot of courage from the mother and I applaud. If the woman's health is in danger, she can try again later when she is at a more stable health condition.

4) I do believe in civil liberties and I do take that as a personal hit. However, why does a organism that no one can see, yet lives under the constant nourishment of their mother, have no rights until it is identifiable as a human being? Again, the father has half of the responsibility of creating the organism, just as the mother has half. No woman can become pregnant without a sperm to fertilize the egg. So both parents should be making the decision together. One more thing, why should a woman be needing an abortion in any case besides the two I listed above? There are other ways to prevent conception from happening at all. These steps(birth control, "the shot", condoms, and abstinence) should be taken to prevent an organism from developing when one is clearly not wanted. It is also shown in statistics that 57% of women in the U.S. who get abortions are young adults that can not financially support a child yet.[1] In this case when the female knows that she can not support a child, why does she not take the preventive measures listed above until she is financially stable.

Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 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: This debate is chock full of assertions with limited warrants and no evidence. So when I make my decision, I'm really comparing what was said and simply trying to find the arguments that have the highest impact, which is never really compared by either debater (so you're leaving it to me). Much as I agree with Pro, my vote goes to Con. Whether it is or is not life is just a "I'm right and you're wrong" argument with no warrants for support. It's life, but the question of whether it's human life remains uncertain. So now I just have to question whether it's more harmful to abort than to lose women's rights and individual choice. Pro never explains to me the importance of either of these things, but Con does explain that lost life is harmful for the lost future. Hence my vote. The source doesn't factor into the decision or even play a meaningful role in the debate, so I can't give the source point.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 2 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: The debate was pretty even. Cons best round was her last, however she made arguments that pro did not have the opportunity to respond to. Con was the only debater to use a source. Pro claims science, but fails to provide a single source to substantiate his claim.