The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)


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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Godgirl has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/29/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 324 times Debate No: 94211
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




I am con. SJM will argue pro. First round is acceptance. Thanks for debating with me!


I accept. I will be arguing that abortion should be legal.
Debate Round No. 1


I'd like to thank SJM again for debating with me. My argument is as follows:
1. The unborn are distinct human beings.
2. Human beings should not be killed.
C: Therefore, the unborn should not be killed.

1. The unborn are distinct human beings.
As defined by, a human being is "any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens."
Individual is defined as" a distinct, indivisible entity; a single thing, being, instance, or item."
From the moment of conception, a zygote is an individual person. They have their own genetic code and are a separate entity from their parents.
2. Human beings should not be killed.
In the United States, we have rights to "Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness." Those rights shouldn't be taken away.
C: The unborn should not be killed. The unborn are human beings, and as such have rights to life.
I apologize for the short argument, I have been busy and this is one of my first debates.
Sources: (


Observation- Abortion which is justified in one case, wins me the debate.
My opponent"s case is based on the idea that fetuses, while brain dead, are living. This is false idea is contrary to the medical definition of brain dead which encompasses the entity not being alive. Citing, "Q. Is "brain-dead" the same as dead? A. Yes. Many people think death happens when the heart stops beating and the lungs stop breathing, but machines can support those functions when the brain no longer can, Tawil says." So what this quote does is explains a misconception regarding when someone is alive or dead, and then stating what brain dead constitutes.
How someone is measures brain waves are through EEGs, "Our brain contains huge number of individual cells called neurons. Neurons communicate with each other through electrical firings, and individual neuron firing is too weak to be detected at a distance. However, large number of thousands or millions of neurons with synchronized activities can be detected on various scalp locations and are called brain waves (measured in cycles per second, or Hertz) as shown in an EEG (electroencephalogram) chart. The various brain wave frequencies are studied extensively and generally correspond to different types of brain activities.", thus meaning if someone has no EEGs showing, then they are considered brain dead, therefore dead.
I took evidence from a pro-life website which states, "A baby's brainwaves can be detected at 6 weeks from conception." Ignoring the word baby, they stated that before 6 weeks after conception, brain waves can"t be detected. This in conclusion means fetuses aren"t living, this doesn"t mean that they were once living, because an entity could have no brain waves without having once lived, therefore this only entails that the entity isn"t currently living. Therefore abortion wouldn"t be killing, since killing requires something to have a life.
There are clearly situations which a family does not have enough money to provide for another human. Therefore I don"t find it necessary to cite something demonstrating this. So going based off the idea that there are situations in which a soon to be baby can"t be provided for after being born, this would not only end in the suffering of the baby, but the situation would further impoverish the family. As opposed to the fetus not feeling pain, and the family having a better chance at surviving their financial problems.
A highly brought up argument is when a woman gets raped, and consequently becomes pregnant. The rape alone puts a huge burden on the victim"s life and also becoming pregnant due to it further intensifies it. My opponent may propose that they could just give it up for adoption or foster care, but there are situations where those services aren"t available. Not only this, but these options don"t just get rid of the damage done since there is work being put into these services, as well as the fact that the parent is knowledgeable of the baby living without it, which would cause some moms so much distress that they would rather raise it because they see it as necessary. This is in the end leads to avoidable complications.
The first point in my opponent"s case is (The unborn are distinct human beings.), but there is a problem with both the words unborn and human beings. The unborn may have a metaphysical possibility, but they are both human and unborn, but we can"t kill them. Therefore my opponent"s first premise includes dead unborn humans, but since my opponent isn"t arguing that we shouldn"t kill dead unborn people, my opponent needs to add in that they need to be alive. How we determine whether someone is alive is by my first paragraph.
"In the United States, we have rights to "Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness." Those rights shouldn't be taken away." Since I don"t find the United States to be infallible, my opponent would either have to prove it is, or that the right shouldn"t be taken away but con does not. Because if con doesn"t then there"s no reason to follow something just because the U.S. says. Even if this is a question of legality, there"s nothing stopping the U.S. adopting a new guideline. The point would have worked if the resolution was about whether it should be legal in accordance with the law.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Godgirl 1 year ago
I apologize for forfeiting last round. Something personal came up. I should be back for next round.
Posted by cwt002 1 year ago
@quertyfoo, The error with the "trolley problem" is that this covers less than 3% of all abortions. I think most pro-life people would accept a deal with you: Eliminate all abortions except for those that threatened the mother's life and in cases of rape/incest. Ultimately, in the end, you would eliminate about 95% of all abortions. Would you accept this deal?

Also, The National Right to Life Committee consistently has "maintained that while abortion should be banned, there should be exceptions if an abortion is needed to save a woman's life."

I agree with that quote in terms of the extent of making abortions legal.
Posted by quertyfoo 1 year ago
A quite interesting topic. I believe that you have failed to address the "trolley problem." If you had to kill one person to save two, would you do it? How about to save ten? A thousand? A billion? The world? Personally, I would do all of those things. But almost everybody should agree with me about the last one.

If both the mother and the embryo will die if abortion is not proceeded with, then the obvious choice is to allow the mother to live. But what about if there's a 99.9% chance the mother will die? A 90% chance? Even a 40% chance?

Furthermore, mothers tend to have children. A single mother dying will have much more of a negative impact on the world (and her children in particular) than an embryo dying. Does this make it right? Not necessarily, but it's the "lesser of two evils".

But going even further, I deny that for all intents and purposes an embryo is a human being. A just-fertilized egg - can it feel? think? act? No. It is just a mass of tissue containing unique genetic code, and with the _possibility_ of becoming a human being.

Now, I recognize that this last part is mostly opinion, but when combined with the first parts, you can't say "let's play it safe" anymore. When you "play it safe," mothers die.
Posted by Godgirl 1 year ago
Posted by SJM 1 year ago
If it's right or if it should be legal?
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.