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


Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 4/7/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,279 times Debate No: 51855
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




I specifically challenged bsh11 because dtaylor said I should try debating against you. Good luck. This round is for acceptance.


I accept.

We agreed in the comments that the exact wording of the topic shall be as follows: "Abortion should be legal in the United States."

I look forward to an engaging debate!
Debate Round No. 1


Cell : An autonomous self-replicating unit that may exist as functional independent unit of life (as in the case ofunicellularorganism), or as sub-unit in a multicellularorganism (such as in plants and animals) that is specialized into carrying out particular functions towards the cause of the organism as a whole.

Case 1: It is alive!

When the egg is fertilized, the egg is now considered alive. The cell starts with a mouth and an anus. Literally. We classify cells as alive, and is human. So, if you really think about it, you are commuting murder. Once fertilized, the cells start rapidly replicating. This make the fetus alive. Don't use the fetus is not alive argument.

Case 2: Adoption

If you really don't want the baby, why not just adopt it out even if it is the baby of a rapist. why not give the baby a shot at life and adopt it out?

Case 3: The parents take a risk

Except for the rare circumstance of rape, a baby has a chance of happening with or without protection. the parents knew of the risks and decided to take the risk anyways. This means they would be willing to take the chance of the mother getting pregnant. If you don't want a baby, adopt it out or just don't have sex.

Case 4: Risks of abortions

Abortion isn't always as black and white as it seems. There are many physical and mental damages that come with abortions. (1) Abortion leads to more deaths for mothers in total, suicide, and natural causes. It also causes mental complication and risk for conditions and side-effects.

Good luck!



Thanks to Con for this debate, and to discuss this important issue. I will use this round to define some key terms, to rebut Con, and then to discuss more broadly why abortion should be legal.


While I accept Con's definition of "Cell," I would like to point out that a cell is not necessarily alive. As the wording of the definition implies, a cell that is not functionally independent is not actually considered alive. If I can show that an embryo or fetus is not "functionally independent," I will have invalidated Con's first contention re: a fertilized egg being life.

Other terms I'd like to define at this time:

Abortion - Is externally induced termination of the pregnancy designed to result in the destruction of the embryo or fetus
Functionally - practically, actually, in terms of functioning
Independent - not requiring or relying on something else
Legal - permitted by law
Embryo/Fetus - An embryo is a multicellular diploid eukaryote in its earliest stage of development...In humans, it is called an embryo until about eight weeks after fertilization (i.e. ten weeks after the last menstrual period or LMP), and from then it is instead called a fetus.

One final observation: given the way functionally and independent are defined, we can merge these two definitions to say that the phrase "functionally independent" connotes that something is "not reliant on something else in terms of the way it functions."


Contention One: It's alive!

Let's say an egg is fertilized and attaches to the womb. At this point, it cannot survive on its own--if eject from the womb or cut off from the nutrients the mother provides, it will die. It is therefore not functionally independent--it is not alive.

Studies agree that most fetuses are not able to survive outside of the womb until at least around 23 weeks. For instance, some studies found that just 30% of fetuses born at 23 weeks survived the ordeal [1]. Other analyses found that 49% of babies born between 22 and 25 perished as a result of complication arising from premature birth [2]. Frankly, fetuses are not functionally independent (independently able to fulfill the functions of a human organism) until about 5 months in--and even that estimate is generous.

Contention Two: Adoption

In an instance where the mother faces two choices: abort, or die herself, adoption is the least of her concerns. While I would certainly encourage mothers to consider adoption, that is not always viable in each circumstance. Moreover, adoption facilities may not be available for all families in the U.S., nor can we say that adoption is always good. In a county or state where adoption agencies have reputations for abuse or misconduct, or where overburden foster parents are commonplace, a mother may reasonably judge that her child would not be well cared for if given up for adoption. If "mercy killings"--eliminating someone's pain through death--don't seem morally repugnant, why not mercy abortions?

I really don't seem much difference between the two, in fact. Let's take a look at this example: say a girl is 12, with a grave disease. The doctors say she could live 20 more years, but she is in constant, tremendous pain, which could only be alleviated through doping her up on medication. Can she reasonably be euthanized? Yes, insofar as it is more cruel to let someone live a life of constant suffering than quickly ending her life. Even medicated, her quality of life would be so bad as to be not worth living, namely because she would be so heavily drugged, that she would not be able to do anything of productive value.

Now, let's compare this with a mercy abortion. Let's say a mother lives in desperate paucity in the slums of some city. She knows if she has her child, her child will live a life of indigence and pain. She also knows that local adoption officials abuse the children in their care and avoid punishment by the authorities through kickbacks and bribes. Either way, her child would live a life of constant trauma and suffering. Con the mother reasonably abort? Yes, insofar as it may be more cruel to let someone live a life of constant suffering than quickly ending the life. Even with a small chance of success, on balance, her child is likely to live a rotten, pain-laden existence, which she does not wish to inflict upon him.

Contention Three: Parents take a Risk

So, what Con is saying is that two consenting adults should be responsible for their own actions. So, if two parents take the risk of having sex, which then results in a pregnancy, shouldn't those adults be responsible for the care of the resultant child?

We can turn this against Con fairly easily. If he wants parents to be responsible for their choices, then they are responsible for the child. Adoption is a way to shirk that responsibility--it is a way to say, we cannot cope with our own creation, so we need to hand it off to someone else. Therefore, by Con's logic, any adult who cannot afford to raise a child should not have sex. I think the absurdity of this position is pretty clear.

Contention Four: Risk of Abortion

Con's source is from a super right-of-center blog and is not to be trusted. But even if we do buy that "10% of women...suffer from complications," why does this matter? The women consent to the procedure, they consent to the risks. Wasn't it Con who implied that if you consent to sex, you consent to the risk of pregnancy and accept its resultant burdens?


Contention One: Justified Homicide

In the U.S. lethal force is justified in defense of yourself or others. Therefore, if a mother's life is endanger because of her pregnancy, she is justified in aborting. This argument works EVEN IF a fetus or embryo is human--and the humanity of a fetus/embryo is still very much in doubt.

Contention Two: Rape and Privacy

Judith Thompson, in her famous essay, "A Defense of Abortion," uses the following analogy in her argument: "You wake up in bed one morning and find yourself next to an unconscious violinist...He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you and plugged his circulatory system into yours so that your kidneys can filter blood for both of you. You call the doctor and he tells you how sorry he is that you were kidnapped. He tells you that in 9 months they will have what they need to heal the violinist, but if you choose to unplug before then, the violinist will die."

Why is that your sovereignty over your body is suddenly curtailed by the fact that someone else might die? The law, in Roe v. Wade, asserted that you have a right to privacy, and you cannot get more private than what lies underneath your skin. What if the doctor came back and said, "Oh, I misspoke. You need to be connect 19 years, not 9 months." Surely, you could disconnect yourself from the violinist at some point before those 19 years were up. The law cannot ask or compel you to live with such an invasion of privacy and bodily integrity for that length of time--it is an unreasonable violation of your rights. If we grant that, then by what rationale can we deny that you have the right to disconnect from the violinist before 9 months? Yes, it is a shorter timespan, but if time is the deciding factor, then where do we draw then line--after how long can you disconnect? If that question cannot be answered fairly and non-arbitrarily, then we must either (1) permit you to disconnect at any time, or (2) deny that you have any right to disconnect at all, which seems, on face, extreme. If we accept (1) as our answer, then we must allow abortions in the analogous instance of rape.


1 -
2 -

Thank you! I turn things over to Con...

Debate Round No. 2


Very strong arguments, from a very exceptional debater. Let's do this.


A cell is a living thing. Like it or not, you are killing what is programmed to be a human baby.

Rebuttal 1:

You say that if an organism can't be independent from it's parents, then it is not alive. However this is un-true. I will take this argument using my favorite animal, the polar bear!

As a quote from the article of frequently asked questions of polar bears, the question was:

" Polar Bear FAQs
How long do the cubs remain with their mother?

Until they're about 2-1/2 years old—although some bears in the Hudson Bay areawean their young at age 1-1/2. During this time with mom, they learn how to hunt and survive in one of the earth's harshest environments. Between the time they leave their mother and they are mature enough to mate, they are called sub adults" (1)

I would say the fetus/embryo is alive. Just because they can't be independent doesn't mean we can just kill them. The fetus's DNA is only made once. You can't copy it. It is their one chance at life. Ever. Who are we to take that away from them?

Rebuttal 2:

First off, I would like you to give me some complications in pregnancy where the mom will die if she doesn't abort the baby, and I'll tell you how to fix it without an abortion. Adoption facilities are all over the place. Now you say that the baby should be aborted rather than go through foster care. Now, take a minute and think about what you are saying. A human being should just die, rather than go through the adoption or foster care process, and have a chance at a loving family in their life? There is something really wrong with that.

Okay I don't even know how this made it into your argument. If the girl doesn't want to die, then it's her choice.

First off, the baby, when he/she grows up, can work hard at their grades, void gangs, get a scholarship, and go to college. He/she can work their way out of the slums. The adoption agency abuse argument doesn't change the fact that he/she may find a decent, and loving family. You make out the adoption process to be so bad, so, I want you to give me solid evidence that many adoption and foster care services abuse and mis-treat the kids there. Why not just give the kid a chance to make it, than just killing them?

Rebuttal 3:

No, if you are not ready for a baby, then don't have sex. If you do choose to have sex, use protection. If all else fails and you get knocked up, you have the option to do the right thing and give the baby to an adoption agency. This way, you take the responsibility of giving your baby up, rather than having the responsibility of being a bad parent.

Rebuttal 4:

I would like to argue that my link is valid. If you were so confident my link was invalid, then you wouldn't have posted an argument against it. my reply to that argument is that the women don't have to die. They can just not have an abortion, and have the baby. Then give it away.

Rebuttal 5:

Show me some complications and I'll show you how it can be fixed without an abortion.

Rebuttal 6:

That is kidnapping, which is punishable by law. The woman can just have the baby, and give it away. Oh no! We don't want to compromise her privacy for a human life! Nah, the human can just die so the mom has her privacy. That is bull! Also, why can't the man be on dialysis? Why can't the mom just have a baby after the rape? Rape is uncommon. Why is a baby's life not as important as the mom's privacy? That is what is messed up.




I thank Con for a convivial discourse. In this round I will address the definitional framework, rebut Con's points, and defend my own case.


Please notice that in Con's initial speech, he states that a cell is "an autonomous self-replicating unit that may exist as a functional independent unit of life."

"May" is a term used to indicate possibility. For example, if I were to say "X may be true," than I am saying that it is possible that X is true, but still possible that X is not true. What this semantic analysis underscores is that a cell is not automatically a functionally independent unit of life. So, when Con says "a cell is a living thing" he is not only misunderstanding his own definition, but also misconstruing my point.

To reiterate, a cell, or even a group thereof, is not necessarily a lifeform. We cannot say that an embryo is a functionally independent human being, and therefore, we should not give the embryo the same rights as a functionally independent human being. I will address this more later.

For right now, we can extend all of the other definitions I offer, which were collectively dropped by Con.



Let's take a look at the Polar Bear example more closely. Consider that a cub once born is able to respirate, consume food, and perform all other bodily functions necessary for it's own survival. While it does need it's mother to feed it, it's mother is not performing its own bodily function for it.

In humans, "the placenta connects the developing embryo to the uterine wall to allow nutrient uptake, waste elimination, and gas exchange via the mother's blood supply. The umbilical cord is the connecting cord from the embryo or fetus to the placenta." [1] A polar bear cub does not have it's waste disposed of by its mothers blood supply, nor does it reside inside her or use her antibodies to fight infections etc. The cub has its own, functionally independent biological systems.

So sure, the cub still needs the mother to nurse it and tend to it, but the cub now has its own independent organs, antibodies, blood supply, and excretory system, etc. separate from his mother.

There is also a second way to refute Con's arguments here: "Born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others." [2]

Finally, Con drops all of my studies examining fetal viability, we can extend these. They show that the fetus is dependent, and therefore fails to meet the criteria for constituting a functionally independent organism.


I will provide examples later in this debate--though unless Con has a medical degree, I would be skeptical of his ability to propose viable alternatives to therapeutic abortions. Even places like Ireland, where Catholicism is rampant, permit abortions when the mother's life is imperiled. Basically, if even staunchly anti-abortion regions recognize that therapeutic abortions are occasionally necessary, it seems unlikely that Con will sufficient prove the converse.

Now, I laid out a fairly interesting comparison between humane euthanasia and abortion that Con has attempted to reduce into the following zinger: "Why not just give the kid a chance to make it, than just killing them."

Let's back up. I am saying that living a life that is likely to be prolonged, cruel, and painful is bad. This logic has been used to justify euthanasia of people who cannot consent for themselves (regardless of their age.) Why can the same logic not apply to abortion? Con's only argument against this is that people can "work to get out of the slums;" he's relying on the American ideal of hard work always paying off.

Only 8% of America's bottom fifth advance to the top fifth; "the growth rate of absolute mobility has slowed, as economic growth has slowed to a disappointing level over the last 15 years. The incomes of middle-class and poor families have slowed even more sharply, because a large share of recent economic gains have gone to a small slice of affluent workers." [3] Basically, upward mobility in the United States is an illusion, it is reserved for a small portion of individuals, and for most people, if you were born into a born family, you are apt to remain poor. [4, 5]

My argument is not that life is bad, but rather that because it is an grave indignity--and affront to the value of life--to allow someone to live in suffering, we should permit "mercy abortions."

Con asks for solid evidence that many adoptions and foster care services fail. Frankly, I don't need to do this. As long as it is possible that a scenario like the one I described could take place, then abortions should be legal in case a scenario akin to it would ever arise.


Con says: "if you are not ready for a baby, then don't have sex." This basically sums up what I noted last round: "If he wants parents to be responsible for their choices, then they are responsible for the child. a way to say, we cannot cope with our own creation, so we need to hand it off to someone else. Therefore, by Con's logic, any adult who cannot afford to raise a child should not have sex." Basically, Con wants us to regress our society back to the sexually cloistered and repressed dark ages.

Moreover, we can turn this on Con's point about adoption. If Con got his way, there would be no adoptions because every parent would raise the children they begot. So, Con is simultaneously for and against adoptions.


The link is patently invalid. It's from a group designed to advance the pro-life agenda, and it is your ONLY source. Judges can make this evaluation for themselves though. I posted a reply to the link out of thoroughness--and my reply went thoroughly unanswered. Extend my point here--women can knowingly consent to the procedures.



Examples, as promised:

Ex. 1: My friend has a heart condition that prevents her from doing a variety of physical activities. Her doctors have told her that she could likely sustain a child up until birth, but that the act of labor would probably kill her.

Ex. 2: Regarding ectopic pregnancies, while usually fatal, a small portion of them produce viable fetuses. [6] If a doctor realizes that a pregnancy is ectopic, he faces this dilemma: the pregnancy will very likely kill the mother, but there is a much smaller chance that nothing bad will happen.

Ex. 3: This is an actual example where a woman with a breathing disorder was unable to provide oxygen for both herself and her child. Her medical team was unable to boost her oxygen intake, and was forced to abort the child in order to save the mother's life. [7]

In all of these examples, the embryo is an imminent and serious threat to the mother's life, justifying a self-defense response in the form of abortion.


I think Con is fundamentally misunderstanding the example. The example is not a real-life scenario, but rather a hypothetical example used to illustrate a logical principle. Con asks why can't the man be on dialysis, because in the hypothetical, this is not an option. In the example itself, there are ONLY two choices, leave the man and the woman connected, or allow the woman to sever the connection.

Can the man feasibly be hooked up to the woman for 19 years just so that he can survive? When does this imposition become too burdensome? Con never responds to the substance of the point.


1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
5 -
6 -
7 -

Thank you! Over to Con...
Debate Round No. 3



The difference of what you believe and what scientists believe to be alive is a lot.

Here is the what happens to the baby developing week by week. (1)

  • Week 5 of pregnancy (gestational age)
    • The brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to develop.
    • The gastrointestinal tract begins to develop.
  • Weeks 6 - 7 of pregnancy (gestational age)
    • Arm and leg buds become visible.
    • The brain develops into five areas and some cranial nerves are visible.
    • The eyes and ear structures begin to form.
    • Tissue forms that develops into the vertebra and some other bones.
    • The heart continues to develop and now beats at a regular rhythm.
    • Rudimentary blood moves through the main vessels.
  • Week 8 of pregnancy (gestational age)
    • The arms and legs have grown longer, and foot and hand areas can be distinguished.
    • The hands and feet have fingers and toes (digits), but may still be webbed.
    • The brain continues to form.
    • The lungs begin to form.
  • Week 9 of pregnancy (gestational age)
    • Nipples and hair follicles form.
    • Elbows and toes are visible.
    • All essential organs have begun to form.
  • Week 10 of pregnancy (gestational age)
    • The eyelids are more developed.
    • External features of the ear begin to take their final shape.
    • Facial features continue to develop.
    • The intestines rotate.

The end of the 10th week of pregnancy marks the end of the "embryonic period" and the beginning of the "fetal period."

  • Weeks 11 to 14 of pregnancy (gestational age)
    • Eyelids close and will not reopen until about the 28th week.
    • The face is well formed.
    • Limbs are long and thin.
    • Genitals appear well differentiated.
    • Red blood cells are produced in the liver.
    • The head makes up nearly half of the baby's size.
    • The baby can make a fist with its fingers.
    • Tooth buds appear for the baby teeth.
  • Weeks 15 to 18 of pregnancy (gestational age)
    • The skin is almost transparent.
    • Fine hair called lanugo develops on the head.
    • Meconium is made in the intestinal tract.
    • More muscle tissue and bones have developed, and the bones become harder.
    • The baby begins to make active movements.
    • The liver and pancreas produce fluid secretions.
    • Sucking motions are made with the mouth.
  • Weeks 19 to 21 of pregnancy (gestational age)
    • The baby can hear.
    • The baby makes more movements.
    • The mother may feel a fluttering in the lower abdomen.
  • Week 22 of pregnancy (gestational age)
    • Lanugo hair covers entire body.
    • Eyebrows and lashes appear.
    • Nails appear on the fingers and toes.
    • The baby is more active with increased muscle development.
    • The mother can feel the baby moving.
    • The fetal heartbeat can be heard with a stethoscope.
  • Weeks 23 to 25 of pregnancy (gestational age)
    • Bone marrow begins to make blood cells.
    • The lower airways of the baby's lungs develop but still do not produce surfactant (a substance that allows the alveoli to open for gas exchange).
    • The baby begins to store fat.
  • Week 26 of pregnancy (gestational age)
    • Eyebrows and eyelashes are well formed.
    • All eye parts are developed.
    • The baby has a hand and startle reflex.
    • Footprints and fingerprints are forming.
    • Air sacs form in lungs.
  • Weeks 27 to 30 of pregnancy (gestational age)
    • Rapid brain development occurs.
    • The nervous system is developed enough to control some body functions.
    • The eyelids open and close.
    • The respiratory system, while immature, has developed to the point where gas exchange is possible.
  • Weeks 31 to 34 of pregnancy (gestational age)
    • A rapid increase in the amount of body fat occurs.
    • Rhythmic breathing movements occur, but the lungs are not fully mature.
    • The bones are fully developed, but still soft and pliable.
    • The baby's body begins storing iron, calcium, and phosphorus.
  • Week 38 of pregnancy (gestational age)
    • Lanugo begins to disappear.
    • Body fat increases.
    • Fingernails reach the end of the fingertips.
  • Weeks 39 to 42 of pregnancy (gestational age)
    • Lanugo is gone except for on the upper arms and shoulders.
    • Fingernails extend beyond fingertips.
    • Small breast buds are present on both sexes.
    • Head hair is now coarse and thicker.
At weeks 6-7, some of the fetus's nerves have developed. This mean the baby can feel pain. Later in the pregnancy, the baby can even react to sound. This is their one shot at life, ever, who are we to take that chance away from them. I want you to consider what you just read and you can determine whether the baby is alive or not. The scientific answer is yes! Just because the baby can't be independent doesn't mean it isn't alive!

Rebuttal 1:

The polar bear cub would die if the mother died or got lost. This means that the polar bear cubs, even if they can consume food on their own, they would die without their mother to get it. This is the point I was trying to make. The polar bear cub can't be separated from its mother, or it would die. Same with a fetus/embryo.

I drop the arguments I feel I don't need to argue. I will argue it if it is important.

Rebuttal 2:

Living in the slums isn't nesicarily bad. Also, what if the baby is part of the 8%? What I get from pro's argument is that we should kill all people living in the slums. If that were true, and we would have "mercy abortions" on eminem's mother, we wouldn't have the king of rap! (2) Eminem and his family were poor, and were in the slums of Detroit. just give the baby a chance. Yet, he gives no evidence that the adoption and foster care companies mainly abuse the children. Thus, proving my point that adoptions and foster care aren't bad, and should be considered an option over abortions.

Rebuttal 3:

Must I quote from my own argument? Fine. Here is what I said.

"No, if you are not ready for a baby, then don't have sex. If you do choose to have sex, use protection. If all else fails and you get knocked up, you have the option to do the right thing and give the baby to an adoption agency. This way, you take the responsibility of giving your baby up, rather than having the responsibility of being a bad parent."

I am not saying don't have sex. That is one option. I list the other options like use protection, and if it fails, then just give it to an adoption place. Overall, this argument was not a strong one.

Rebuttal 4:

I have two more links for you (3) (4) These both confirm there are major risks for abortions.

Rebuttal 5:

Ex. 1: Maybe your friend can get a heart transplant, or have her heartbeat stabilized by a machine during labor.

Ex. 2: Maybe, if caught soon enough, they could move the fetus. I also want to know how many mothers has this killed. It also clearly states there are treatment options besides abortions.

Ex 3: What did the medical team try? There is a tool that can bring oxygen straight to the lungs.

Rebuttal 6:

Then how can you use this for an abortion debate? If this is not a plausible real life scenario then why bring it up?

Thanks. Over to Pro!






I thank Con for this debate. I will rebut Con's case, defend my own, and then provide some reasons to vote Pro.



I argued: "a cell, or even a group thereof, is not necessarily a lifeform. We cannot say that an embryo is a functionally independent human being, and therefore, we should not give the embryo the same rights as a functionally independent human being."

Con provides a chronological laundry list of qualities a embryo/fetus develops. But this only serves to underscore my point. An embryo is not a fully functional human being until it has developed all of the biological capabilities of a fully functional human being (which means that it no long relies on its mother for waste excretion, antibodies, etc.)

So, let's use Con's very own evidence here. In week 6, "arm and leg buds become visible." Well, it's clearly not a fully functional human being yet. In week 11, "tooth buds begin to form." Still not a fully functional human being. In week 15, "the skin is almost transparent." Still not a fully functional human being. In fact, it can take up until week 25, according to Con, for the fetus to begin to produce blood cells. Still not a fully functional human being.

Con attempts to score rhetorical points here with his rather grandiose proclamation: "Just because the baby can't be independent doesn't mean it isn't alive!" In fact, it does mean the fetus isn't alive. Scientist believe that "[l]iving organisms also are thought to require a degree of biochemical autonomy, carrying on the metabolic activities that produce the molecules and energy needed to sustain the organism." [1] Unfortunately, a fetus is reliant on the mother for may of their crucial biochemical needs, including vital substrates and proteins. [2] Ultimately, this returns to what I said round one: "cell that is not functionally independent is not actually considered alive." Inasmuch as a fetus is not functionally independent, it fails to meet the definition of life. Con has failed to offer any evidence or analysis to show otherwise.

Now let's move onto the polar bear example. By functionally independent, "not reliant on something else in terms of the way it functions." Sure, the polar bear cub is reliant on its mother to provide for it, but the cub's biological functionality is no longer reliant on the mother. The cub has its own organs, its own metabolism, its own excretory system, etc. When put very simply, its mother is not performing the cub's own functions for it. Therefore, the cub is alive, whereas the fetus is not.

Moreover, Con totally drops this: "Born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others." This applies to the cub as well. If separated from its mother, the cub could be fed or cared for by another bear or by a person who happens to find it. However, a fetus cannot simply find a surrogate; it is totally reliant on its mother. Therefore, the cub is alive, the fetus is not.


Con never challenges that living a life of prolonged suffering and pain is bad.

Now, let's assume that the euthanasia candidate has an 8% chance of survival--only a miracle could save her. She has two choice: live the last few years of her life in excruciating pain clinging irrationally to the hope of survival, or to terminate her life with dignity and save herself years of suffering and degradation. Con is attempting to say that as long as there is any chance the child could have a great life, that abortion is wrong. Yet, the odds favor a miserable, horrid existence. The principle here is the same as with euthanasia--if suffering is bad, very likely suffering should be avoided when possible.

Con's says that he's proven that foster cares aren't bad--but having offered no warrant to back this up, it's a hollow claim at best. Regardless, all I need to show is that it is possible that this scenario could occur in order to say that abortion should be legal in case it does occur. As it is possible that a similar situation could arise, this contention flows Pro.


Con repeats what he said, perhaps not understanding my argument. Nevertheless, repeating his own statement is insufficient to rebut my attack against it.

I pointed out that "[Con] wants parents to be responsible for their choices, then they are responsible for the child. a way to say, we cannot cope with our own creation, so we need to hand it off to someone else." Therefore, adoption is not taking responsibility for the child. The logical conclusion of this analysis is that "any adult who cannot afford to raise a child should not have sex" regardless of whether or not they are protected because there is always a risk.

While not explicit, this is the implicit extension of Con's assertions. It is not logical, nor is it reasonable for this modern world.

Again, this contradicts with his point regarding adoption, for reasons already stated ad nauseam. But moreover, I don't really need to win this point to win the debate.


Con offers two more links. Firstly, just providing the links and saying "here, read these," Con's seems to be circumventing the character limit. But this is unimportant. Even if we grant that abortion has medical risks, it doesn't matter, because Con drops that women can knowingly consent to the risks before undergoing an abortion. Thus, the fact that abortion is risky is immaterial; many medical procedures entail risks, but we can undertake them anyway so long as valid consent is provided.



Ex. 1: A heart transplant is extremely risky. You want to discontinue abortions because they pose risks to patients, but yet you're advocating for a non-medically necessary heart transplant, just to avoid the possibility of abortion? Frankly, that is an incredibly extreme view to take, when an abortion is likely less perilous for her than the heart transplant.

Ex. 2: It doesn't matter how many mothers it has killed, as long as it could kill someone. As long as this possibility exists, self-defense abortions need to be permitted in case a life-threatening situation does occur. Moreover, "if caught early enough" is frankly insufficient. If it's not, then the right to self-defense is triggered.

Ex. 3: The medical team attempted to expand her contracting airways, which failed. Since Con doesn't tell us what this miracle tool is, and since a team of certified medical doctors found no other way to treat her, I would be inclined to believe the mother was justified in exercising her right to self-defense via aborting the fetus.


And Con drops this whole contention...He says it is somehow invalidated because it is not a "real life scenario," but that is a fundamental misunderstanding of how I am using it. I am using this example to demonstrate a philosophical principle. By using a hyperbolic hypothetical, I can very clearly make the point that I am trying to make: and that is that there is no reason why the woman should be forced to live with a violation of her privacy for 9 months, because the baseline is arbitrary.


1 - An embryo/fetus is not the same thing as a fully developed human being, and so it should not receive the same rights as one
2 - An embryo//fetus is not a lifeform, and therefore lacks the rights that a living entity might acquire
3 - Even if it were alive, self-defense justifications may permit aborting the embryo/fetus
4 - The Rape Exception permits abortion--this was 100% dropped by Con

For all of these reasons, I ask you to VOTE PRO! Thank you!


1 -
2 -
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
This should be good!
Posted by Cooldudebro 2 years ago
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
What is the specific resolution...?

"Abortion" is kinda vague. How about: Abortion should be legal in the United States.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mikal 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't think this justifies much of an RFD but con was promptly slain. I do mean slain, like entrails left on the floor slain. Pro had an overwhelming case for self defense, and con just did not care to answer any of pros rape arguments. I would write a highly detailed RFD, but this was just entirely one sided.