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

If an abortion can be justified in any way

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 531 times Debate No: 56165
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




I do not believe that an abortion can be justified in any circumstance because an abortion is a murder of an innocent, and I do not believe that this can be justified in any way.


First off:

When a woman is violated sexually (raped), and the man fails to deploy any birth control method, such as condoms, or medication for the woman, she, most likely, becomes pregnant.

Abortions are the only way the woman can remove the child.
It is wrong to legalize a rule that states all pregnant woman must give birth to their child, since the raped women did not have a choice in its conception.

Also, Pro-Choice allows for the woman to make the choice.
They can choose to keep the baby, or not.
By banning abortions, you infringe on their rights a human that can make their own choices.

For the point Con made about murder, I will try to think this through myself.

The whole argument about murder is based on the idea that the thing being killed is human.

The point of view Con is arguing from would say fetuses, and embryos would be considered human.

If this is so, why can't sperms be considered humans as well? They're technically alive, just like fetuses.
Using this logic, then it wouldn't be just banning abortions, it would be enforcing laws to prohibit masturbation, and also wet dreams, because they're alive too. You can't just throw them into a garbage can, leave them lying on your bed, or throw them into a toilet.

So, back to the argument at hand, the point I was trying to make is that murder is the conscious ending of someone's (human) life for malicious reasons, like hate, or apathy, but if we decide that fetuses are human, since they are technically alive, and part came from a human (or excuse me, is in a human), then following that logic shouldn't, sperms, and eggs be kept in the same regard as a human?

This is ridiculous, since murder causes remorse, since it is a deviation from our morality (or moral compass, or God's law, or whatever belief fits into the parameters of morality), and people don't feel anything when they leave their sperm to die. Correct me if I'm wrong, Con. (Which is the whole point of this, now that I think about it)
Debate Round No. 1


First off, a women who has an abortion after being impregnated unwillingly has sinned just as much as a woman who wasn't, because the choice to kill the baby is the same, irregardless of the circumstance. Secondly, it is murder to kill a fetus because of the fact that the fetus has the potential to be a human. A sperm on the other hand does not have the potential to be a human, at least not by itself, which does not make it immoral to "kill" it.


So, does Con believe that the birth of a child isn't a mutual choice between both man and wife, that if a man, for some reason, wanted many children, and raped several women to do so, they could not get an abortion? What if the impregnated women are too young to support a child, a bad influence, or too poor! They can't get an abortion, so the children other live with bad influences such as alcohol, abuse, cigarettes, etc., or they are sent to an orphanage. Neither one of them seems to be great.

Com also says, "it is murder to kill a fetus because of the fact that the fetus has the potential to be a human."
He then went on to state that sperms do not have the potential to be a human, or at least by themselves.
So, what is a sperm, to Con? If it isn't human, what is it? And what is an egg? If that's not human as well, what is it? and how can you create a human out of the combination of the two?

I think Con would agree that a sperm is alive (I'm excluding the egg, since I have yet to understand the workings of the ovary, and I do not want to make false assumptions, but I am pretty sure it is alive).

If a single-celled organism is alive, a sperm is as well.
A sperm can create a human, so it must have some human DNA.
It should be wrong to kill it then, right?

I do hope Con elaborates on what he means by, "sin", since the Bible is hardly a great book to use for moral judgments, considering the elaborate, and strange penalties included in the Old Testament like for the crimes of adultery, rape, and Sodomy (Leviticus, and Deuteronomy).
Debate Round No. 2


I think that living in an orphanage and being given a chance at life is better then not living at all. What I was saying about the sperm is that it by itself it does not have the potential for life, the only way it does have potential is with an egg. So a sperm being killed is not condidered wrong as the life does not have any worth. The fetus however is a worthy living being that does not deserve to be killed.


Con still did not elaborate on his meaning of, "sin", but we can move on anyway.

How does Con know that loving in an orphanage is better than non-existence?
Con, most probably, and forgive me if you are, is not an orphan.
To clarify, I am not saying that the lives of all orphans are terrible, but that isn't the point. The point is that children should have a family who wants them, and cares for them at the beginning, and if the woman was forced to be a mother, it is most likely that they do not desire the baby, much less care for it.

Con seems to be saying that forcing a pregnant woman to give birth (a woman who wants an abortion, because they don't want a baby, or can't have a baby, through financial problems, age, etc.) is right.
Debate Round No. 3


Life is usually seen as a gift and to take that away would be wrong. In a response to your argument though if living as an orphan is worse then living at all, then would it be right then to kill a 1 year-old orphan? On a side note I did not respond to your comment on sin because I believed it would bring us into a whole other argument, off topic from this one.


The argument Con gives, "Life is usually seen as a gift and to take that away would be wrong.", invokes the idea of religion, which, like he also said, would be an entirely different subject.

I never said it would be right to kill an orphan, and that being an orphan is worse off than being dead.
I am trying to to say that forcing a woman to give birth to child, and therefore raise it, when she didn't want to have it, through economic problems, age, or any sort of reason, would give the child a difficult start, since the mother didn't want to have him/her in the first place.

Thank you for an engaging debate.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Your_Conscience 2 years ago
I meant round one. sorry.
Posted by Your_Conscience 2 years ago
Excuse me. In round two, I was also meaning to put social contract as well.
No votes have been placed for this debate.