The Instigator
Pro (for)
21 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/26/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 490 times Debate No: 59580
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)




Resolution: Women should be allowed by law to abort their fetus.
BoP is shared. Con should make his arguments in Round 1.

Voting rules:
Forfeit in round 1, 2 or 3 means debate loss.
Con using more than 300 characters in Round 4 means Con lost.

Pro's arguments:
1) p1: Fetus is part of woman's body. p2: Everyone owns themselves. c): Fetus is in woman's property.
2) p1: Chances are woman who does not want child will be bad parent. p2.1: People raised by bad parents are (in average) worse citizens then kids raised by good parents. p2.2: People raised by parents are bad for society c: It is bad for society for fetus of woman who doesn't want it to become citizen.
3) p1: China has laws that punish people for having too much children. p2: Some Chinese people want more children. p3: China is more likely to soften those laws if people who don't want children don't produce them. c: Some Chinese people will benefit from women having right to abortion.

p = premise; c = conclusion


Con's Arguments:
1) Because it is immoral to kill another human being, and fetuses are human beings, it is then immoral to kill a fetus.

1) While it is true that everyone owns themselves, it is also true that everyone owns what they make. For instance, a farmer who owns land, and raises crops on that land, owns those crops. Those are his crops, and he may do with them what he pleases. If one, who is not the farmer, takes those crops, he is committing an act of theft, which is immoral by current social standards. Because a child is a product of what parents make, is the child then owned by the parents? Would, then, it be perfectly acceptable for the parent to kill the child, seeing as how he is their property? The point here is that human beings always own themselves, and to put an arbitrary beginning to owning themselves (ie birth) is merely an excuse to kill them because it is convenient.

2) The woman will not necessarily be the parent, as adoption is normally an option where abortion is technologically available. Even still, the phrase 'bad for society' is mere word salad, it doesn't really mean anything. 'Society' only exists in the abstract, so things that are 'harmful' or 'good' for society are pure opinion; to some, the Holocaust, widely regarded as one of the most horrible events in man's history, was a 'good' thing for society. It is immoral to kill a human being, despite your opinions of their effect on society.

3) We can extend this to the world at large; a lot of people would benefit from abortion. It is a financial/time/emotional burden that is completely lifted off of their shoulders. But, simply because it benefits some people does not make it moral. If we killed the richest man in the US, and distributed his money/property to US citizens, they would clearly benefit. However, because murder and theft are immoral actions, we do not do this, though it may benefit us.
Debate Round No. 1


Rebuttal of Con's argument:
Clarification - Many people regard killing as destroying life, which is certainly not the case. Everyone who was ever killed would also die if he wasn't killed. Therefore, killing is only making life significantly shorter, where significantly is very relative.

1) p1: Some people don't think killing another human being is always immoral p2: Burden of proof is on people who claim it is p3: No evidence is presented that killing is always immoral c: My opponent's premise "It is (always) immoral to kill another human being" is false.
* If my opponent is not arguing that killing is always immoral, then his conclusion doesn't follow.

2) According to this definition of human being, fetus is not human being:

Rebuttal of my opponent's supposed rebuttal:
1) "Everyone owns what they make" is empirically not true. Examples of some people owning what they make does not prove it is always the case.
Rest of opponent's 1) are not arguments, so I will ignore it.

2) Clarification: By society, I mean large group of people who interact with each other, so it is not abstract, and "bad for society" is not word salad.
Rest of opponent's 2) is not refuting anything in my argument 2)

3) Nothing in my opponent's 3) is refuting my argument 3), my opponent even kinda admits my argument 3) is correct in his supposed rebuttal.
Here is one nice explanation of what rebuttal is:


Rebuttal to my Rebuttal:
Destruction, n. - The action or process of causing so much damage to something that it no longer exists or cannot be repaired. Killing is destruction because you've caused damage to the life to the point that it no longer exists. To take this argument to the logical conclusion, an arsonist could posit that he did not destroy the building, as buildings decay anyway, and he merely 'shortened it's existence.'

1) I am most certainly arguing that killing is always immoral. Or, at least, unwanted killing. Following your format, p1) My opponent believes that it would be immoral for another to kill him if he doesn't want it, p2) Morals must be universal in order to be applicable, so c) Killing, at least killing that is unwanted by the killed, is immoral.

2) That is not a definition, it is a google search. A human being, in the biological definition, is a member of Homo Sapiens, which fetuses obviously are.

Follow Up on Previous Points
1) Just because you've said something is empirically not true, does not make it so. You can provide an example, as I did, or else you're just saying meaningless things.

2) That's still abstract, because you can't say who for sure is in or out of the society. For instance, you cannot sue 'society' if your life doesn't turn out the way you wanted it to. It isn't a tangible thing, it's merely social connection and interaction. Anyway, you haven't demonstrated how would-be aborted children would negatively affect society. And, even if you did, it wouldn't matter, because that does not supersede the idea that murder is immoral.

3) You obviously did not read the post at all. I said that abortion could be beneficial, but that does not matter. If something is immoral, it is immoral, whether or not it benefits somebody. Theft is beneficial to somebody, but it is still immoral. The fact that abortion could be beneficial to the mothers of China has absolutely nothing to do with the morality of the act.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent has proven that arsonist is not destroying building but merely shortening its existnce; Which is not relevant to this debate.

last round 1) rebuttal:
p1) is emprically false. I don't believe "it would be immoral for another to kill him if he doesn't want it.

last round 2) rebuttal:
Defition is within the google search.
p1: If only thing by which human is distinguished from rest of the world is by being Homo Sapiens, then human = Homo Sapiens p2: Human <> Homo Sapiens c: My opponent's definition is invalid.

Example for some people not owning what they make: People who make screws in car industry. (Those screws go to other group of people as soon as they are finished)

" you can't say who for sure is in or out of the society"
My argument 2 specifically says "citizens". We can tell who is citizen and who is not.

My original arguments do not include statement that abortion is moral. So abortion being immoral(even if it was the case) does not refute them.


You really need to work on your reading comprehension, bud. I was illustrating the point that killing IS destruction of life, not 'shortening it's existence', just as arson is destruction of property, not 'shortening it's existence'.

1) Look up the definition of empirically. My claim was that YOU would find it immoral if someone killed YOU against your will, and because morals are universal, you must also find it immoral to kill other people against their wills. If you do not, then you admit to hypocrisy.

2) None of what you said makes any sense. Biologically, humans are members of Homo Sapiens. Humans are different than other animals, sure, but the only prerequisite for being a human is being a member of Homo Sapiens.

3) You can define it however you want, it still doesn't exist tangibly. You can't hold society, see it, touch it, smell it, etc. Therefore, it is abstract. But, if you want to continue to claim that it is, show me some data, even just correlational, that suggests that abortion is harmful to society (here's a tip: you probably can't).

4) If you're fine with doing something that's immoral, then you're either a) Irrational or b) Evil. You can admit to either one of these things if it pleases you, but I don't think it'd do much to help your argument.
Debate Round No. 3


Response to my opponent's Round 3:

My opponent has offended my comprehension because he doesn't like his own conclusion.
(My guess is that he made unwritten premise "arsonist is destroying the building", but this only falsifies his own definition of destruction; I however prefer to respond to what is written rather than to what is meant)

I know the definitions of words I use, I said I don't think it would be immoral for someone to kill me without my consent.
I would not be beneficial for me if someone killed me, but that doesn't imply it is immoral.

"None of what you said" is certainly not a rebuttal. The rest of my opponent's 2) is same statement as I previously rebutted. Rebuttal of premise can not be rebutted with the same premise.

You can certainly see, touch and smell fellow members of the society(citizens).
"show me some data, even just correlational, that suggests that abortion is harmful to society"
- My opponent is the one who should be arguing that. I am arguing that abortion is beneficial to society.

I don't consider anything to be immoral. I do what I think is beneficial to the things I love, and I don't do what I think is harmful to the things I love.

My opponent rebutted none of my arguments, while I rebbutted his only one.


Response to R4:

1) No, I made an extreme example in order to show the logical end of your argument, because it was stupid. Killing is destruction of life, just as arson is destruction of buildings. If someone burned your house down, you would most certainly not let them get away with it, especially with a claim as incoherent as 'I didn't destroy it, I just shortened it's existence!' Destruction means to end forever. Killing is destruction of life.

2) Yes, you do. If they did not have your consent, then you would be against it. If you are against it, you're stating a moral preference. Because morals must be universal, that means that you would also be against the murder of others. If you consented to your own killing, then it would be morally fine, but once again, I said non-consensual killing.

3) I put forward a definition. You didn't rebut it. You tried to say that you did, but you didn't. There was no counter-definition, no source cited, just your words.

A human is a member of Homo Sapiens. Fetuses are Homo Sapiens. Therefore, we must give fetuses the same moral treatment we do humans, ie not murder them.

4) No, but society isn't the people, it's their interaction, as you yourself said. You can't touch social interaction.

For the second part, you did get me, that was a typo. Still, you haven't shown any sort of evidence to support abortion being beneficial. And, even if you did, it wouldn't matter, because this is, as it must be, an argument over the morality of the issue.

5) Yes you do. You exhibit moral preferences all the time. Not wanting to be stolen from, killed, beaten, etc. If you have these preferences, but don't respect the right of others to have them, you are a hypocrite, plain and simple. Or, at the very least, irrational. Neither of which says very much for your argument.

Abortion is wrong because fetuses are humans, and it is wrong to commit murder. My opponent has failed to offer any real rebuttal to this.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by ZenoCitium 2 years ago
According to former United States Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop,"we should not view the unborn baby as an extension of the woman's body [because] it did not originate only from the woman. The baby would not exist without the man's seed."
Posted by Tychas 2 years ago
That's just biologically not true, dsjpk5. I don't think, however, this discounts a human's right to life. Babies require adults to survive, and even specifically female adult bodies, but killing a baby would be widely regarded as immoral.
Posted by ZenoCitium 2 years ago
That is not a difficult premise to discount. I'd rather not accept, though, if I'd have to argue for abortion in every case.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
Fetus is NOT part of the mother's body. Make that argument.
Posted by ZenoCitium 2 years ago
Is the resolution absolute, ie: there are no exceptions? Can CON argue exceptions?
Posted by Sfaulkner 2 years ago
I am only for abortion in certain cases.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con never proved killing to be wrong. Hence, their argument has no basis.
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con would have won if he provided an objective way to measure morality, but he unfortunately just asserted that killing a fetus is immoral. Pro rebutted this point.
Vote Placed by NathanDuclos 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Thank you for the read. . . it was a little hard to follow adn went off on bad analogy. . but Con offered bad examples and Pro stayed on point.