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

Banning of the "morning After Pill"

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: 10/29/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 762 times Debate No: 64206
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




1: The "morning after" pill presents the risk of levonorgestrel the main source for the pills effectiveness throwing off woman's menstrual cycles which can have long term effects especially if used habitually.

2: The pills other side effects include significant weight gain of on average 15 pounds, depression, ovarian cyst enlargement, gallbladder disease, high blood pressure, respiratory disorders, increased risk of ectopic pregnancy and death

3: Studies show the woman who use the pill are more then likely to use the pill habitually which can only increase the chances of the individual being effected by the side effects.

C: The "Morning After Pill" should be banned.



1. sex has become more socially accepted and statistics show that more teenagers are having sex at a younger age then they where ten years ago.
2. although the morning after pill is not a alternative to using condoms and other forms of safe sex. It gives you that second option in case a accident does occur.
3. not everyone can financially support a child. 80 percent of teenage moms end up on welfare and do not finish their education therefore limiting job opportunities in the future.

c: the morning after pill should not be banned
Debate Round No. 1


Sex has become more socially accepted and teenagers are having sex at a younger age but this does not condone the use of a pill with a primary ingredient with many dangerous side effects . If anything this further proves my point because now the risk is being exposed to teenagers which are much more likely to need this "back up" plan more frequently than adults and further putting themselves at risk and continually damaging their menstrual cycles that can pair with their already complicated hormonal imbalance. The view of teenage moms and the financial Burdens they go through would be a solid defense if it was only used by teenagers but the fact is that the pill is used by females of all ages and poses a health risk that is not necessary.


you are right the morning after pill does come with side effects just like every other drug on the market. . The water we take our medication with contaminated with fluoride that can damage the brain and bones of the consumer. It is banned in over ten countries including china, Japan and all of Europe but yet is nearly found in all aspects of American consumption. I am not saying the morning after pill makes it ok to have unprotected sex regardless of what age you are. We know teenagers are not the only ones using this product although they are the majority, we are just giving does how are unprepared for a child or not ready to have one the option of not doing so.
Debate Round No. 2


The argument that every drug has side effects is not a sufficient enough excuse for the use of this potentially dangerous drug, and the fact that other drugs have side effects doesn't make it okay for them to be on the market especially one as unnecessary as this one. The example you use of water drags us to the red herring fallacy as you bring premises that have little to do with the conclusion and is pointing out one harmful ingrediant in our drinkingwater but ignore the fact that the positives and necessity of our everyday drinking water unlike this drug which is not essential at all There are plenty of other contraceptives out there already and just providing this harmful back up even further damage these woman and there decision making


you say that all the other drugs on the market that have side effects is not a sufficient enough argument but what does the pill defer from other ones that cause all types of cancers and altzers . Taking the morning after pill does not guarantee any of the symptoms its simply a warning that there maybe a risk when taking the pill. The same risk you take when you consume any prescription medicine. It is up to the consumer whether they want to take it or not. Only one person can decide if the risks are worth it and that is the women faced with the life altering decision of having a baby. If we didn't have this pill more babies would end up at the doorstep of churches or behind dumpsters abandoned by mothers who can not handle it.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by AJosten 2 years ago
Sorry to chime in, but I think Pro is missing an extremely important point-many things that have well off uses also can cause various negatives: any heart medication, or pretty much ANY prescription drug for long term use that you'll see on TV being advertised has a long list of possible horrific side effects, but they still are used and are not banned because they help people. Just because something can potentially be harmful does not always outweigh the positives. It is an individuals choice to take a pill like that if they need to. Sounds like you have a personal agenda towards the morning after pill unrelated to the actual side effects.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's case just never gets contested. Despite all the basic facts that a) they know the side effects and b) that the only person affected by those side effects is the person taking them, I never get that analysis from Con. If Con had just argued that it's not a government's responsibility to protect people from themselves, Pro's case may well have been defeated here. Instead, Con goes with analysis that really doesn't lead to any demonstrable impact. I would have liked to see some of the harms of abortion (which many of these people would engage in), and more analysis regarding what forcing a child on a young mother does to her life and livelihood, but without that analysis, his case just comes off weakly. Hence, I vote Pro.