The Instigator
Con (against)
4 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
6 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: 6/27/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 418 times Debate No: 77019
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)




Greetings fellow debater my stance on Abortion is not 100% anti-abortion but, more of a leaning stance on the issue. My argument is stated below.

Abortion is one of those issues that has no straight forward solution that is applicable to ever occurrence. In either scenarios of rape or a child being brought into a world with less of a chance to succeed in life, there are no winners. Each case is unique and should not be looked upon the same in the eyes of the law. For those who wish to use abortion as a scapegoat or as a means or birth control to avoid their responsibilities I believe shouldn't be granted the right to an abortion. Coming to the conclusion that that child will indefinitely not succeed in life is a generalization that bounds no lawful or moral right to an abortion. I believe that cases that deal with rape or incest are an exception but, should be handled in a timely manner and not put off till whenever the female carrier feels that she is ready. I also toss to the side any religious argument with the fact that one religion's beliefs shouldn't be forced on to another person that may not even be affiliated with that religion.


My argument in round one is a couple of simple points, as you have presented scenarios yourself where I would agree abortion is obviously the right decision (e.g. rape).

In my opinion it is ultimately up to the women who is pregnant to choose whether she has an abortion or not. You say that those who wish to use abortion as a scapegoat or to avoid responsibility shouldn't be given the right to an abortion but who makes that decision? By this I mean who would decide whether the parents, in particular the mother, are choosing abortion because they don't want the responsibility. Would a doctor have to review the current state of their lives and make a decision for every person who wanted an abortion? That just doesn't seem fair or practical.

One other argument I will draw attention to (which I think you would agree on) is that young teenage girls who become pregnant are more likely to die in pregnancy than women over the age of 17-18, the babies born to these younger mothers are also at greater risk. I think it is only right these girls are given the right to an abortion if they choose.

I think these points suffice for round one of this debate, if you feel I have missed any key points that you made please bring them to my attention.
Debate Round No. 1


For the first point, the idea raised is that abortion shouldn't be legal for those who dont have a legitimate reason for having an abortion. The officials that dictate whether or not that individual should be granted the right to an abortion should be a medical professional. That individual would be taking all of the risk with their career and medical license on the line when dictating that decision. Simply basing an abortion on excuses such as, money, responsibility, or success in life are NOT legitimate reasons for an abortion. These are selfish justifications that dont excuse this individual from giving birth. Every human being brought on this earth has a chance to do what they wish with their life and for a person to automatically declare that their child wont have a good life and so shouldn't be brought into this Earth is an ridiculous statement. No matter how great or how small each human beings chance to succeed to in life. There's nothing "fair" or "practical" about an abortion which has only been in existence for 100+ years. It takes two to create and unless its rape there is no excuse. If my grandparents weren't Catholic and hadn't believed in Abortion then, my mother would haven't been born with her parents being 16 years old therefore neither would I. Having grandparents whom were both poor encouraged my parents to work harder than the average American and monetarily that work has certainly paid off.

You are correct on your second point that I would agree with that female teenager holding the choice of whether or not she can choose to have an abortion.


For the second round of this debate I will argue against the points you made and try to explain other legitimate pro abortion ideas that you may not have considered.

Firstly I assume by a medical professional you mean the doctor performing the abortion? I think you are asking too much of a doctor to risk their career and medical license in making such a decision, I also feel they aren't really qualified to and that most doctors wouldn't want to make this decision (this is what I mean by it not being practical or fair).

You also stated that "Every human being brought on this earth has a chance to do what they wish with their life..." If this is the case then shouldn't a mother have the right to choose to have an abortion? If the parents genuinely feel that they can't look after a child because they aren't ready or they can't afford it, then I don't think that its ridiculous for them to want an abortion. There would be nothing crueler than bringing a child into this world that isn't wanted. Surely it would be better to terminate the pregnancy in the early stages, than let the child be born and face neglect and parents who do not want him/her.

I am disregarding the point you raised that abortions have only been around for "100+ years" as a good basis for a debate about fairness or practicality, there are plenty of things that have been invented in the last 100 years which have helped the human race incredibly. Also I don't think that you can use the fact that your mother and you would not have been born as a viable argument, the issue of abortion can not be brought down to a personal level (even if you think it has affected you/your family) and that seems to be what you are doing.

I would also like to bring up the point that if abortion was restricted, like you wish it to be, then parents who felt they couldn't raise a child and thought abortion was the only way, would only end up turning to illegal abortions after being turned down by the doctor. This would more than likely end up in there being a lot more deaths caused by abortion, as well as the creation of a huge black market of doctors practices. I put forward the idea that if you really have such a personal and moral problem with abortion, then the real issue you would address is teaching people about things like safe sex and ultimately avoiding unwanted pregnancy's.

If you feel any points I have made in this stage of the debate are unfair, or I haven't addressed issues you brought up let me know.
Debate Round No. 2


In the final round I will address all topics that you raised as well as reiterate & explain my stance.

In response to my statement on the role of abortion doctors, you stated, "I also feel they aren't really qualified to and that most doctors wouldn't want to make this decision". It is not a matter of feeling nor can you proclaim that most doctors wouldn't want to make that decision therefore it can't happen. Do you think abortion doctors enjoy their practice of extracting and removing a pregnancy? What about Gynecologist's that have to tell a new mother that she had a miscarriage? It's not a matter of "want", it is a matter of responsibility. In every operation a medical professional's career is on the line so by any means that wouldn't be asking too much...?

Yes I did state, "Every human being brought on this earth has a chance to do what they wish with their life", but I also stated "No matter how great or how small each human being has a chance to succeed in life." Every Human being should be granted the right to life. You bringing up the idea of money again as a reason to an abortion isn't sufficient. Jumping to the conclusion that that child is going to live a neglectful life is another generalization that you dont have the right to make. What if that child would go on to become a Math prodigy or a Professional athlete but, we would never know based on the fact that we cant afford it so lets just get rid of it.

The point on the 100+ year span was used to illustrate the fact that for thousands of years human beings didn't even have this option open to them and now all of a sudden in recent centuries, females are now entitled to a new scapegoat of having unprotected sex.

Yes I certainly can bring up the fact that this is on a personal level and completely disregarding it is not answering the question on what about the thousands of people that have reflected my outcome? Should that person not have the privilege of expanding their family tree?

I absolutely know that when you outlaw something it creates a black market but, the real question is how many woman are willing to take it to that stage? By outlawing abortion you have effectively reduced the number of woman that will eventually go through with the process. Of course you cannot prevent all abortions, for the goal is to make it less accessible to the general public.

Teaching Sex Ed is of course an ideal tool to informing teenagers about the dangers of unprotected sex as well as STD's, etc. but, you talk of the idea of Sex Ed in the sense that it is a substitution to outlawing abortion. With the combination of Sex Ed and abortions made illegal it is highly probable that there will be a rise in protected forms of sex which decreases this idea of an abortion in the first place.

I also forgot to mention that if a females life was in danger that I certainly would agree that she should be granted the right to an abortion. There was actually a case in Ireland of this where abortion was outlawed and so as a result the mother died as well as her baby.

Lastly I would like to state a darker side of abortion procedures which deals with late term abortions. When used in non-life threatening scenarios this is a disgusting practice that is as far as I know illegal but, still reported every year. Another upside to outlawing abortion is that you effectively reduce the number of patients that may have to experience such an event.

Abortion is not a black/white issue where there is 1 answer that is applicable to every patient for each female's case is different and unique. All I hope is that societies stance is not 100% pro-abortion nor 100% anti-abortion. In most arguments I typically side with the idea that if it doesn't affect me who cares if its legal or not, like gay marriage. However this issue involves two people where 1 person gets to make the life or death decision. That is not mutual and therefore I do find issue with this topic.

Please feel free to let me know which points you support, or are against with explanation. Thanks and I enjoyed debating.


My counter argument in this final round will hopefully confront the issues you brought up and conclude my argument.

When a doctor is doing his job you're correct it should not be a matter of feeling, however deciding whether a women keeps her baby is not and shouldn't be a part of their job and does come down to feeling! Sure they are risking their medical career in every operation but they are risking it doing what they have been trained for, operations which either go right or wrong, not making life decisions for patients. Wanting to not only train doctors to perform the necessary procedures but also to force them to make extremely difficult decisions for their patients, is a ridiculous idea and I don't think its unfair to say that most doctors wouldn't want that decision in their hands.

There is another key issue which you have failed to bring up in this debate. You did say that "No matter how great or how small each human being has a chance to succeed in life." but now you have to think when does a fetus become a human being? This is still largely a matter of opinion. I am assuming that you believe the fetus is never anything other than human from conception, however there's no agreement in medicine or philosophy to when life begins. This being the case I don't believe your argument is really a valid one, just an opinion without evidence that life begins at conception. Also saying I "don't have the right" to make the argument that a child may have a neglectful life, completely voids your right to say he may become a math prodigy or a professional athlete. You are simply using the same argument as me just on a different ends of the spectrum (bad life in the future/good life in the future) and then claiming I don't have the right to make this argument but you do.

Yet again you are saying that "for thousands of years human beings didn't even have this option" as some kind of point in your argument but I still don't see how it's relevant? For thousands of years we didn't have the internet, electricity, transport and a massive number of other amazingly helpful things but that fact holds no merit in an argument. OK so we didn't have abortion 500 years ago, this ended up with children simply being abandoned or even killed at birth. Are you saying that it's better for the women to keep the child for 9 months give birth then kill it, than simply have an abortion when the fetus is still undeveloped. This isn't a scapegoat of having unprotected sex as you so cruelly label it, it is doing what is in the best interest for all concerned party's.

As far as the thousands of people who claim that abortion is terrible because they wouldn't exist if their parents or grandparents had an abortion, I still disregard this as a terrible argument. I wouldn't exist if my mum had an abortion. My mum would not have existed and neither would I if my grandmother had an abortion, so what? These are just obvious statements. I don't know what you mean by "Should that person not have the privilege of expanding their family tree?", everyone should have the privilege AND THE CHOICE of expanding their family tree when they feel they are ready to do so. It shouldn't just be forced on them without them having a say as soon as they become pregnant.

Furthermore you are just assuming that outlawing abortion would effectively reduce the number of woman that will have abortions, this is your opinion based on nothing. I think that plenty of women would be willing to take it to that stage...

"A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it," -New York Times.

For the reasons I have stated throughout this argument I believe that abortion will not be made illegal. So I wasn't talking about anything being a "substitution to outlawing abortion" as I think outlawing abortion will never be considered. It just seems the majority of reasons you argue come down to a personal level, I am suggesting if you feel this way then the best thing you can do is help people prevent unwanted pregnancy's, not force them to keep their child against their will.

I don't believe there is "1 answer that is applicable to every patient" that is a very close minded attitude. Everyone has a choice in their life, choices they must make themselves, choices another person has no right to make. You say it involves 2 people, however the issue here is again the opinion of when life begins. Until this becomes a fact not an opinion I stick by my original point that it ultimately comes down to the women who is pregnant to make the choice of whether or not she has an abortion.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Capitalism101 1 year ago
The consistency of your reiterated statements has lead me to question how this is even a debate when you state your point and then say, well that's how I feel for 3 rounds. You avoided the areas I brought up where logic prevailed and the area's you did mention you absolutely twisted my meaning or stated your feelings. Yes, mentally ill because anyone with a functioning brain would not be so fixated on their point of view that they would not even be willing to budge on their position. I mean really......We cant prove that outlawing abortions will even decrease the number of abortions and then you cite me something from New York Times as if that has any credibility for passing off as an even elementary idea.
Posted by RaifWeaver 1 year ago
Really? I must be mentally ill? I think that you are far too emotional and clearly angry about this issue to really make kind of debate about abortion. I don't need to sink to name calling and swearing :) calm yourself before you respond so aggressively deary.
Posted by Capitalism101 1 year ago
My decision stayed the same as you continually repeated yourself with ill-logic and twisting what I was trying to get across and then, after all of this debate you introduce new ideas at the last round and state, oh well you didn't introduce this other idea that wasn't even talked about before. After agreeing with a portion of my coherent points you then go on to do the same bullsh*t where you say of well I dont "believe" or I dont "feel" or "think". You have to be mentally ill to insist that somehow by outlawing abortion that every single mother would take an illegal route and that abortions will increase or stay the same, and since its not outlawed I have no data to prove my argument. I mean really that's like saying you cant prove less people will purchase a product if you triple the price! I stated that there is NOT "1 answer that is applicable to every patient" and you selectively choose only this portion, "1 answer that is applicable to every patient" and then argued against that! Are you serious?
Posted by RaifWeaver 1 year ago
Thanks I enjoyed putting forward my thoughts in this debate!
Posted by WaywardSon 1 year ago
Haven't seen an abortion debate in awhile. interesting to read.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by MrMoney 1 year 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: I think Con nailed it with the scapegoat arguments and the 1 person chooses. The doctor is the more qualified person and we shouldn't kill a human that could succeed. I like how he also didn't go 100% anti-abortion but still made logical arguments to oppose it
Vote Placed by MrVan 1 year 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a good debate, and both participants expressed their opinions well. Con made a few minor grammatical errors, and his arguments weren't quite on par with Pro's. I wish they could have provided a few sources to back their opinions.