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

Beginners' Tournament: Abortion should be banned, even in cases of rape.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 571 times Debate No: 75125
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




In last round, Pro must put 'no round as agreed upon'.

First round if for Pro's opening case, not for acceptane alone.


There is one thing, and one thing only that really matters in this debate: Is the fetus a human? According to scientific
"Faye Wattleton, the longest reigning president of the largest abortion provider in the United States"Planned Parenthood"argued as far back as 1997 that everyone already knows that abortion kills. She proclaims the following in an interview with Ms. Magazine:

I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus.1

On the other side of the pond, Ann Furedi, the chief executive of the largest independent abortion provider in the UK, said this in a 2008 debate:

We can accept that the embryo is a living thing in the fact that it has a beating heart, that it has its own genetic system within it. It"s clearly human in the sense that it"s not a gerbil, and we can recognize that it is human life.2"

""It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."

"The official Senate report reached this conclusion:

Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."

"The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and the oocyte (with 23 chromosomes) at fertilization results in a live human being, a single-cell human zygote, with 46 chromosomesA533;the number of chromosomes characteristic of an individual member of the human species. "
"This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother.)12 Finally, this new human being the single-cell human zygote is biologically an individual, a living organism an individual member of the human species"

What makes the fetus so obviously, biologically human is that from conception, the fetus has HUMAN DNA, and the zygote is what every cell you are made from develops. Thus, it is the beginning of a human life, as part of the species Homo Sapiens. It isn't an opinion, but a fact that the fetus is part of Homo Sapiens.
Of course, "pro-choice" people will say the fetus isn't human because of 4 excuses known as SLED:
Level of Development
Degree of Dependency

These arguments are completely false. Size has nothing to do with level of humanity, a large athlete is no more human than a 5 year old. Development is false also, as a 65 year old woman is more developed than a pre-pubescent, and yet they are both human, Environment does not change anything, as going 8 inches down the birth canal does not make you more or less human, where you are does not dictate your humanity. Finally, dependency is false as those on life support and infants dependent on their parents for everything does not make you less human.


"Marquis' argument is straight-forward. Abortion is seriously morally wrong. Why? Because abortion involves killing. But, what is wrong with killing. Killing robs a being of a natural property which is of great, if not the greatest, value. What is this natural property of which a being is robbed? It is the property of having a future, a "future-just-like-ours." To be killed "deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one's future. Therefore, killing someone is wrong, primarily because the killing inflicts (one of) the greatest possible losses on the victim. To describe this as the loss of life can be misleading, however. The change in my biological state does not by itself make killing me wrong. The effect of the loss of my biological life is the loss to me of all those activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments which would otherwise have constituted my future personal life. These activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments are either valuable for their own sakes or are means to something else that is valuable for its own sake." "Therefore, when I die, I am deprived of all of the value of my future." (p.308) Since fetuses have the same kind of future that we do, and since it is wrong to deprive us of our futures, it follows that it is wrong to kill fetuses and thereby rob them of what is of the greatest value to them.""Abortion is the intentional act of killing a fetus robbing it of a future which has a value-like-ours."

P1) Intentionally killing an innocent being with a future-like-ours (FLO) is morally wrong.
P2) A fetus is an innocent human being with FLO.
P3) Abortion intentionally kills the human being.
C) Abortion is morally wrong.


Scientifically and biologically, the fetus is a human, as a human being is one part of Homo Sapiens with human DNA, and the fetus is part of that. Abortion takes away that life. FLO is why life is valuable, and innocent lives should not be taken away by abortion. I await Con response!

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born."
Ronald Reagan
"A person's a person no matter how small"
Dr. Seuss
Debate Round No. 1


Pro begins with an interesting point. Pro states that the fetus is a human. This "human" is barely conscious of its own existence but, more importantly, is nothing but a parasite to its host (the mother) and frankly is a parasite even after birth unless she gives him/her up for adoption. Would we apply the same morality we would an earthworm to a tapeworm? Would we apply the same morality we would to a soldier of our nation to one of the enemy nation in a war? There are many contextual aspects to the morality of killing a human being that Pro fails to address.

Pro is using a form of morality called deontological ethics[1] which state that ones duty and role in society dictates what is 'right' or 'wrong' and that no other factors should be taken into account. This is not only a flawed way to go about morality in the legal sense but is not substantiated by any means.

Everything Pro has proves that the fetus is of the species human. That is all that it proves.

Pro overlooks back-alley abortions abortions[2], the feelings or ethics regarding the mother and situations where the mother may die from childbirth.

Pro has not uphold their resolution at all and I'll bring more evidence in R3 if necessary. Quoting famous people proves nothing.





Con has conceded the humanity of the fetus, which basically hands the debate over to me. I'll explain why here.

The Con rebuttal to the humanity of a fetus is "Pro begins with an interesting point. Pro states that the fetus is a human. This "human" is barely conscious of its own existence but, more importantly, is nothing but a parasite to its host (the mother) and frankly is a parasite even after birth unless she gives him/her up for adoption. Would we apply the same morality we would an earthworm to a tapeworm? Would we apply the same morality we would to a soldier of our nation to one of the enemy nation in a war? There are many contextual aspects to the morality of killing a human being that Pro fails to address."

Basically Con is saying that killing a human being is sometimes justified, something I'll agree with as I am a death penalty advocate. But he claims that since the fetus is a parasite , it does not deserve to live. The fetus is NOT parasitical. has the scientific definition of parasite as "An organism that lives on or in a different kind of organism (the host) from which it gets some or all of its nourishment.". The medical definition is "An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host." The fetus does contribute something, however, and cannot be called a parasite because it is the same species as the mother.

The fetus donates cells to help out the mother. This is not parasitical.

Hormones given out during pregnancy, because the fetus, make you have really good sex. That's important.

The fetus isn't parasitical because it is the same species and it provides benefits. The relation between the mother and fetus is important and symbiotic. Fetuses aren't foreign invaders; they originate from the mother and father from a natural process to keep the human race alive. That's not parasitical. Typical choicer fallacies.

Con says that "Everything Pro has proves that the fetus is of the species human. That is all that it proves." That is enough to win the debate.

"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

Based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the most fundamental piece of world law today, we know that life is an inalienable right. Con has conceded that the fetus is human but brings up excuses justifying killing it.

Excuse: Banning it won't completely stop it. Coat hanger abortions are dangerous.
"According to data from the National Center for Health Statistics, the legalization of abortion was not responsible for reducing abortion-related deaths. The discovery of antibiotics in the 1940's actually reduced all deaths by providing effective treatment for infections. The National Center for Heath Statistics reveals that before 1941, there were over 1,400 abortion-related deaths. Yet, after Penicillin became available to control infections, the number of deaths was reduced in the 1950's to approximately 250 per year. By 1966, with abortion still illegal in all states, the number of deaths had dropped steadily to 120. New and better antibiotics, better surgery and the establishment of intensive care units in hospitals all led to such a decrease, even in the face of a rising population.

Between 1967 and 1970 sixteen states legalized abortion. In most it was limited, only for rape, incest, severe fetal handicaps or deformities, and when the pregnancy jeopardized the life of the mother (all of which constitute only 5% of the abortion cases today). There were two notable exceptions - California in 1967 and New York in 1970 legalized abortion on demand.

Legalizing abortion should have eliminated some deaths related to illegal abortions, but that is not the case. In the years from 1963-1969, there were an average of approximately 55 deaths per year due to illegal abortions. In 1970, after this initial wave of laws legalizing abortions, there were 109. Deaths from illegal abortions actually increased.

By the year before the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision allowing legal abortion on demand in all fifty states, the death rate for illegal abortions had fallen to 24 in 1972 (with 25 additional deaths as a result of legal abortions). In 1973, there should have been a sharp drop in abortion-related deaths with abortion legal in all fifty states and "back-alley abortions" eliminated with their alleged total of maternal deaths. Yet abortion-related deaths increased again with 25 deaths resulting from legal abortion in 1973, 26 in 1974 and 29 in 1975. "

"The Centers for Disease Control, which has tracked U.S. abortion data since 1969, reports that "[after the] nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the total number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions increased rapidly, reaching their highest levels in the 1980s."11 In 1970, there were 193,491 legal abortions. In 1973, the first year in which abortion was legal in all 50 states, there were 615,831. By 1981, that number had more than doubled."

Keeping abortion legal makes more people do abortions, as the majority of people did not do abortions until the legalization of it. The misconception of unsafe coat hangers is completely false. EVEN IF illegal abortions are more dangerous, the role of law is to reduce more deaths and to protect the victims, in this case the fetus. By Con logic, we should legalize murder because it makes it safer for people to kill without worrying about being shot by police.

Excuse: Life saving abortions blabla.
"While he was United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a preborn child"s life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother. He said the use of this argument to justify abortion in general was a "smoke screen."

Due to significant medical advances, the danger of pregnancy to the mother has declined considerably since 1967. Yet even at that time Dr. Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood acknowledged, "Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life." Dr. Landrum Shettles says that less than 1 percent of all abortions are performed to save the mother"s life.

Con may bring up ectopic pregnancies, in which the fetus develops outside the uterus. However, in this case, surgery is not abortion as abortion is "expulsion from the uterus of the products of conception before the fetus is viable ( The fetus is not inside the uterus. In all other cases, the patient can be brought theough pregnancy alive unless they have fatal diseases.

"Quoting famous people proves nothing."

It proves a lot. For example, airmax once said "Water is wet". That proves a lot. Airmax also said ""I actually support ...the Spanish inquisition, the murder of natives and so much more."... but that's not the point. Quotes are cool, and so is ice.

My Case

The fetus is a human. We agree on this. The fetus is also alive, as it shows growth ( movement, response, and metabolism, along more. All alive humans have certain inalienable rights, including life and bodily autonomy. Violating these results in lack of FLO, and treads on an individuals rights. Vote pro
Debate Round No. 2


8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA forfeited this round.


I win. FF
Debate Round No. 3


Yeah I'm not feeling this tournament tbh, I never was all that competitive a person.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by kingkd 1 year ago
I haven't even done my rebuttals yet... Thanks for the vote of confidence
Posted by IllogicalThinker 1 year ago
Pro going to lose, his stance is too undefended.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
Interesting opening round
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con concedes.
Vote Placed by lannan13 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 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: Forfeiture and Concession on behalf of Con.