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

Banning Abortion

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/11/2013 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,024 times Debate No: 40304
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




I think that we should ban abortion because it is Killing a unborn baby that doesn't need to.


I thank my honourable opponent for initiating a question that I have strong opinions on.

My opponent has been direct and to the point, so let me be.

A) A fetus is not a human being

A fetus, , first or second trimester, is not yet conscious. Not being conscious, it is not a human being who has emotions and makes rational decisions. It does not have life except insofar as bacteria, trees, or grass are alive. Why don't we have concerns about chopping down trees? What about those ants you stepped on on your way to work?

Also, A fetus does not have the brain parts, in lay terms, developed enough for conscious thought until late in the third trimester, near to it's birth. Many scientists actually believe that fetuses are not conscious until birth (1).

B) Unsafe Abortions

Legal or not, abortions happen. The difference is that when they are illegal they are in backalleys with coat hangers. The dangers of infection and of damaging a woman's body are fairly obvious. Currently, in the developing world and especially places where abortion is illegal, there are 69,000 deaths per year from unsafe abortions.

C) Unnecessary Hardship

There's a reason women request abortions. In some cases they are raped, and they understandably don't want to raise a child from such a situation. The mother's life may also be in danger. You know, the living, breathing human whose body pro - lifers are trying to control.

The parent must also raise the child, once it is born and IS conscious. They may not have the economic means to do this and this also causes unnecessary hardship.

D) Not your body

I know, civil rights. They always get in the way of the whole theocracy thing... But having been born with our bodies, it would seem like we had the right to them. A fetus is still connected to, and part of, a woman's body, therefore it's her body we are talking about, her property. And frankly, she is allowed to do what she wants with her body, as her property. If this is overturned, then that body is property of the state, which A makes no legal sense and B is reminiscent of a police state.

In summary, the fetus is not conscious, therefore does not have emotions and is not "human" in the traditional sense. Endangering women's lives, creating more unwanted children in the world, and taking control of human bodies seem somewhat drastic measures to protect a group of multiplying cells. Therefore I urge readers to vote against.

Debate Round No. 1


Yes but banning abortion would mean that there is more people in the world.also you shouldn't ban it but not if you have been raped.also if you don't want a baby keep you legs shut


"Yes but banning abortion would mean that there is more people in the world.

Banning abortion would indeed mean that there would be more people in the world. Overpopulation is a major problem and 842 million people (1) are undernourished every year. More people only causes more problems.

"also you shouldn't ban it but not if you have been raped.also if you don't want a baby keep you legs shut"

Why does my opponent suddenly allow abortion in cases of rape? If you're killing a child, shouldn't the child's life be paramount? The second comment makes no sense. Many people accidentally become pregnant every year, what is wrong with them having abortions? They aren't killing a human being, defined as is "distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning" (2) in the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

In short, my opponent has neither refuted my points nor introduced any thorough arguments of his/her own. Please vote for con.

Debate Round No. 2


Yes but banning abortion would mean that there is more people in the world.also you shouldn't ban it but not if you have been raped.also if you don't want a baby keep you legs shut


Unfortunately my opponent has not added any new points, nor refuted mine...

I therefore await the time when my opponent will have the opportunity to do the above.
Debate Round No. 3


xxxxShannonxxxx forfeited this round.


No response - my arguments stand.
Debate Round No. 4


xxxxShannonxxxx forfeited this round.


Responses still lacking. Vote for con!
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Numidious 2 years ago
Jack Kemps 2016

Contrary to popular opinion, wikipedia can be quite a reliable source. Wikipedia articles must have citations, like most web articles, and these are accurate enough. The numbers on wikipedia are not controversial anyway.

When do we ever give multiplying sets of cells rights? Also please note that life begins before conception. What about all the sperm and eggs that are wasted every year? They're alive too.

I have provided evidence, and I have provided both logic (which is valid in any debate) and numbers from what I believe are fairly reliable sources. But if it is only 68,000 deaths per year, are you going to say -only- 68,000? Don't those 68,000 count as well?

You have claimed to destroy my case but you haven't really provided any points against it. A woman has a right to her own body, it's property rights, and she can do what she wants with it. Until the child is conscious, it has no rights. Underhill, liberals, (and I am not one), are worried about cutting down trees b/c of this when people first came to Iceland 25% of it was covered by trees. Now only 1% is.

Jack Kemps' only point was "Rape should be the only viable thing that is worthy of abortion" but he unfortunately provides no evidence for his claim, or any others.
Posted by jackkemps2016 2 years ago
Just would like to make a point that wikipedia might be the most unreliable source. It is a good place to look for basic material as a starting point. Also, is neither a valid source by a good cases standards. The con provides not the most valid points. It is strictly an opinion based case. As the con is arguing pro choice, does a baby not have a voice or rights of it's own? Although a baby in the womb does not a physical voice, it certainly has rights. Life begins at the conception and if a woman decides to kill a baby there is no justice for the child. The rights of the child must be protected, as yours were when you were conceived.
You also have your facts wrong, and that is because your sources are not valid. My proof is here- "Back-alley" abortions cause 68,000 maternal deaths each year in the 33 countries where abortion is not legal or available, according to the World Health Organization in Oct. 2006 (David A Grimes, MD, et al., "Unsafe Abortion: The Preventable Pandemic," Lancet, Oct. 2006) I will let you finish your debate but just before you start making un true claims, please provide actual evidence. While I am still going, Rape should be the only viable thing that is worthy of abortion, but really it shouldn't. Do you even know how much an abortion costs? Now with this whole new [non]- affordable care act, a teenage girl can get an abortion without an adult's consent. Do you find it right for a high school girl to be hoping from one bed to another with several different men and if she happens to get pregnant have a free abortion? It's absurd, but please let me not destroy your case before you are even started.
Posted by UnderHill 2 years ago
Just thought I'd like to point out that a lot of people actually freak out about cutting down trees and stepping on ants, and that would be PETA and other environmental organizations. Who are ironically also liberal and pro-Abortion.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con for the forfeits by Pro. Pro never presented anything close to a solid argument. Nor did Pro ever refute any arguments that Con presented. While con did misuse some sources (using weasel words to claim that "many scientists" when the source only presented a single scientist) most of their sources were fine and they actually used them.