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

In the united states Abortion should be legalized"

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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/9/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,317 times Debate No: 21855
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (4)




I would like someone to argue with...that is willing to and if I offend anyone I'm very sorry..
Round 1- intro
round 2- arguments
round 3- cross-examine
round 4- closing


Abortion should be legalized because when you deal with "circumstance" it becomes tricky.
The usual argument is if a woman gets raped or incest occurs, she should get an abortion. What about sex salves (By force) and a pregnancy that can go bad? If a woman needs to have an abortion, she will know it because it is her body. The doctors they attend will also give expert advice.
Debate Round No. 1


The Many Cons Of Abortion

Despite the many cons of abortion, terminating a pregnancy is legal in many countries. Some areas have adopted stricter parental notification and parental consent laws, but no one has successfully turned out legislation banning pregnancy termination. Even though the procedure is legal, many people believe that terminating a pregnancy is a serious human rights violation and that the procedure should be banned in most, if not all, cases.

One of the main reasons against abortion given by pro-life advocates is that life begins at conception. Abortions most often occur within the first eight weeks of a pregnancy. During that time, a baby develops a heartbeat and elementary brain activity. The RU-486 pill actually starves a fetus of vital nutrients, causing it to die and be expelled from the womb. Surgical abortions terminate the fetus before scraping the uterine lining.

Many people are against abortion because of their religious values. People who practice both Judaism and Christianity often cite the Sixth Commandment from the book of Exodus, which states that "Thou shalt not kill". In the Islamic faith, the Koran specifically states, "Do no kill or take a human life which God has declared to be sacred". People who practice these religions, particularly if they believe that their scriptures are to be interpreted literally, often oppose the procedure.

Some want to stop abortion because they believe that it violates the Hippocratic oath. One section of the oath, which is sworn to by doctors when they are authorized to practice medicine, states that "I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion". In the modern version of the oath, doctors swear that "above all, I must not play God".

Crucial against abortion facts include the fact that the fetus may feel pain. Dr. J. S. Kanwaljeet, a professor at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, stated in the New York Times magazine that a fetus beyond 20 weeks of gestation is capable of feeling pain. This disturbing assertion dissuades many people from approving of the procedure, particularly in the later parts of a pregnancy.

Certain evidence suggests that women and men both endure psychological damage associated with pregnancy termination. Women who undergo the procedure are 154 percent more likely to commit suicide according the Southern Medical Journal. Also, the Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology has reported that nearly half of all men feel regret and sadness after a pregnancy is terminated and that a quarter of all men experience a significant depression.

Many bioethicists argue that terminating pregnancy allows for discrimination. Fetuses with certain genetic abnormalities like Down's Syndrome or cystic fibrosis may be terminated simply because of their genetic abnormality. When many people with abnormalities are able to lead rewarding lives in modern society, this discrimination becomes a major reason that makes people feel that abortion is wrong.

Major anti abortion facts include the proven health consequences for the mother. The International Journal of Epidemiology found that 15 percent of first-term miscarriages were attributable to previous abortions. Also, the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute has recognized a correlation between abortion and increased risk of breast cancer.

One of the major arguments against abortion is that abortion doctors are entrepreneurs. Overall, the pro-choice industry makes about $830 million each year, and abortions may range in cost from about $350 to $1,000. Many people who declare themselves to be anti abortion believe that doctors and organizations such as Planned Parenthood care more about making money than they do about legitimate health care.

Pregnancy termination means that fewer children have the chance to be adopted. While over 2 million people in the United States want to adopt babies, only about 134,000 U. S. Babies are available. Many people on the pro-life side of the abortion debate argue that mothers should carry their children to term and then give them up for adoption so that they can live with loving families and fulfill their potential.

Many people are disturbed by the profound cons of abortion. The many fetuses who have been terminated over the years could have grown into valuable contributors to society. Someone with the capability to cure cancer or to become the next president or prime minister may have died under a doctor's knife. In the end, the thought of what society has lost because of pregnancy termination may be the most disturbing thought of all.


In the past 2 years many states in the U.S. have passed bills that make it difficult. There may not be legislation on "pregnancy termination", but what would you call legislation on Doctors who would be deemed a criminal if they perform one? Human rights violation is a weak argument when abortion is mentioned. A woman life was or could be in jeopardy because of another or if she goes full term. She is living through the ordeal at that present time.

I am thinking of the woman who was violated herself. Until a baby's brain and heartbeat are monitored, It is tough to guess on when the baby is developed. But even if so, a woman might be in danger if she carries full term. If the mother died while giving birth or right before, who violated human rights? By the way, some cases have had that if the woman were to die, the baby might not make it at all. So 2 people are dead because abortion is wrong?

The argument for being against abortion is, if you wait the eight weeks when the baby's brain and heart will develop? What about the woman who was put in this situation? Pro-life advocates want us to think of the baby being recognized at conception. If that were the case than a pregnancy test can recognize it at the point of the sperm entering the egg. It can't. For those advocates to deem life begins at conception and the first eight weeks the brain and heart develop, have two arguments that go against each other. Those arguments are only done in movies (Species).

When discussing religion, everybody hunkers down in their reason. So let me see if I get this straight. In biblical times, when life was but a few people, fornication was allowed so mankind would continue. Those people were considered "family". Today that would be construed as incest. But today it is illegal. A man kills his brother because he felt the need to sacrifice him to GOD (Today that is illegal known as murder). When people use religion as reason reason of belief, then they have to account for other things.

For doctors, their oath is in regards to the patience they deal with. They are told not to play GOD. That brings up what i said earlier of if a woman's life is in danger if the baby is carried full term.

Now for the Prof. who said past 20 weeks is capable of feeling pain, I understand that. But didn't say the baby definitely does. So if the doctor isn't completely sure, then the article is an assumption not a fact.

When discussing Planned Parenthood, 3% of them help with abortion. My friend went there for an abortion because she needed it for her health. She didn't know that her health was affected before she got pregnant. But planned parenthood helped her.

I know people are disturbed by the aspect of abortion. but they don't care about the woman who is carrying the "egg" and her health. But those people who are pro-life tend to want to kill the doctors who perform abortions. Seems to me that they don't practice what they preach. If women want to have the baby fine. If their health is at stake, who cares right? because according to pro-life it isn't the woman who has been and is going through a lot who is important, but an an egg that people are now guessing when they are considered alive.
Debate Round No. 2


Question 1.
I assume that you think that we human beings have human rights. Your position, in fact, is that among the rights a human being has is the right to control one's reproduction. Well, at what point do you think that a human being, with human rights, comes into existence? Is it at birth, or earlier?

I could ask the question more concretely of you yourself: you have human rights--did you acquire them only when you were born? Surely you must have had them earlier, since premature babies are human beings with human rights, and the only difference between, say, a baby who is born prematurely by two weeks, and one who is still in the womb two weeks before term, is that the one is inside its mother, and the other is not; and the one that is inside, if taken out, will live just as much as the one born prematurely.

Then is it at what is called "viability" that you acquired human rights, i.e. when you were capable of remaining alive, if you were taken out of your mother? Or do you think it happened when your brain waves were first detectable (at about 6 weeks after conception)?

For the moment, I'll put aside the obvious objections to these criteria; for the question I really wish to pursue is the following. Whatever answer you give-- viability, brain waves, whatever--Why don't you oppose abortion after this time? I don't mean, simply, "why don't you refrain from seeking an abortion for yourself, or for a friend, after that time". I mean, rather, "why do you do nothing to stop those human beings with human rights--as you have concede--from being killed"? It is your view that, after viability, say, the fetus is a human being with human rights, equal in dignity and importance to you and me. There are 150,000 abortions in this country each year after viability. This is, on your account, a massive violation of human rights. Why do you do nothing at all to stop this? You are pro-choice, yes, but you are pro-choice, I presume, only for abortions which are not, on your account, violations of human rights.

Do you do nothing because you do not wish to impose your views on others? But of course then I could ask of you why you ever act morally, since that will always require that you impose your views? When you act against racism, for example, you similarly impose your view on others who disagree. Is it that you are uncertain--you merely believe abortion is wrong after viability, but you have little confidence in your belief? I wonder whether you truly have little confidence in it--and, if you do, whether you are at all justified in having little confidence. And I would note, furthermore, that this "lack of confidence" of yours, and this--shall we say--paralysis that you suffer, in not doing anything about what, on your account, is a gross violation of human rights, is itself a consequence of legalized abortion, of the abortion mentality, and constitutes an argument against legal abortion--because legal abortion has clearly numbed your moral sensibility, and that of others as well.

But--returning to the line of argument-- suppose it is the case that you lack confidence in your belief. I fail to see why that should hold you back, if the other person is not more certain. And I don't think it is the case that people who seek abortions after viability, or the physicians who do them, are more confident that what they are doing is right, than you are that they are wrong. Or perhaps it isn't a matter of confidence at all, but you simply regard your view about when a human being with human rights comes into existence as somehow something "purely subjective". But then, I wonder: why isn't your view about born human beings having human rights similarly "purely subjective"? If the view that rights begin to exist at a certain time is purely subjective, then the view that they continue to exist after that time must also be purely subjective. But then it seems that you do not really believe that there are such things as human rights, and, in particular, you cannot really believe that there is such a thing as a right to privacy or a right to an abortion--and your lack of confidence, and paralysis, in opposing those who would abort human beings after viability, should, at least, be matched by a similar lack of confidence, and paralysis, in opposing those who would prevent abortion before viability.

If you are to be consistent, your confidence in working for legal abortion before the time you think a human being comes into existence, cannot be greater than your confidence in working against legal abortion after the time you think a human being comes into existence--that is, if your view that viability marks the transition from not having rights to having human rights, is anything other than a mere rationalization.

Question 2.
Pro-choice people argue that the lack of consensus about when life begins implies that abortion should be legal until birth. By why only until birth? Why not after birth--that is, why do we not allow infanticide? My concern is: what keeps us from legalizing infanticide? Is it only because there happens to be a consensus that infants are human beings with human rights? But what if that consensus should change? And it is not naive to suppose it might change. There have been many cultures throughout history which have condoned infanticide, just as many cultures have condoned slavery and human sacrifice. There are philosophers who have argued that there are no good reasons for favoring abortion but opposing infanticide. And reasoning like that used to support abortion has already been used in many cases to argue for infanticide of Downs Syndrome children.

Well, suppose this way of thinking did become more widespread, and a sizable section of our population began to think that it is unfortunate but necessary at times to kill newborn infants. There would no longer, then, be a consensus. So would you concede that the lack of consensus on infanticide implied that infants should not be protected from killing--that the parents should have the right to decide, that it's "their decision", not anyone else's?

If you do concede this, then I would urge that it's not clear that you have any moral principles at all--since it seems you are willing to give up your moral beliefs, if enough people disagree with you. You would be, in effect, hostage to how others think. But if you wouldn't concede this--if you deny that a lack of consensus that it is wrong to kill infants would cause you to acquiesce in legalized infanticide--then why do you concede that a lack of consensus about preborn children implies they should not be protected? To put the point another way: if you lived in the United States in the 1950s, say, when abortion was considered as abominable as infanticide is today, you presumably would have denied that the wrongness of abortion hinged upon the consensus against it. So similarly you should deny today that legalized abortion follows from a lack of consensus against it.

Question 3.
But in general, why does any position, rather than any other, follow from a lack of consensus? Suppose someone were to argue as follows: "There is a lack of consensus about when human life begins; therefore, abortion should be prohibited throughout pregnancy." Why is this argument any more, or less, reasonable than the argument that:"There is a lack of consensus about when human life begins; therefore, abortion should be allowed throughout pregnancy?"

If the former argument is a non sequitur, then so is the latter. It might be thought that, given a lack of consensus, the "easier" of two alternatives should be adopted, and it is easier on the woman to allow abortion than to prohibit it. But this consideration begs the question, by assuming that there is just one human being--the mother alone and not the child--with respect to whom we should judge the "ease" or "difficulty" of the two options. You might as well just argue outright, without this talk about "lack of consensus", that abortion should be legal--because only the interests of the woman need be considered. But if this is your view, then you very well cannot turn to the pro-life person and insist that it is wrongheaded for him to press for the illegalization of abortion, given a lack of consensus on the matter--because, again, you favor its legalization, given a lack of consensus, which is no more reasonable or unreasonable than favoring illegalization, given a lack of consensus.


Question 1: Life begins when the fetus can survive without depending on the mother. In other words, breathing on their own without depending on the mother, then it is fully alive(Opinion).
I believe viability is when the fetus can survive without the mothers help. (I already answered this question)
First of all, late term abortions are generally done only in extreme cases; i.e. the mother is in distress or the fetus will not survive live birth. The great majority of abortions are performed before the first trimester. As for the 150,000 abortions each year, where did hat number come from? where are the facts to back that up?
First of all, i don't impose my morality on anybody. I feel sorry for racists because they are ignorant. I don't feel morally superior because of my beliefs. How can i feel morally superior if I am pro-choice. It isn't like pro-lifers who disagree with decide to kill I'm sorry hunt abortion providers.
Last part of question 1 is Huh? My reason for being pro-choice is simply this, if abortion was illegal, women would still be attempting to get them as they were before the Roe v. Wade decision. They would be butchered by incompetence who were just in it for the money. Only rich women who could affords it, would be able to get safe procedures done.
Question 2: So why stop at infanticide? If we follow your logic, killing should be legal no matter what age a person is. I have already stated that life begins at viability and I don't believe in taking a life after that. But this does bring me to a question of if a parent has guns and allows the kid to play with it, only for hm to accidentally shot and kill himself, then what would you pro-lifers call that?
Last part of question 2: Huh? i didn't understand that.
Question 3: Copy and paste much? To answer your question, i am not arguing on any kind of consensus. i am simply saying that if a woman does not believe in abortion, then she shouldn't have one. But, If she chooses for whatever reason to end a pregnancy, it should be her choice.
Debate Round No. 3


First of all, I don't know how my opponent doesn't understand my question.
Second, I would appreciate if my opponent would stop the personal attacks
Third, can you be professional about this and not whatever you call it!!!

Now my opponent failed at attacking my case...
I have many counters against the Pro side...
I feel most of my opponents case is based on opinion...

Now to summarize my case... I would like to state 10 main reasons against abortion
Since life begins at conception, abortion is akin to murder as it is the act of taking human life. Abortion is in direct defiance of the commonly accepted idea of the sanctity of human life
No civilized society permits one human to intentionally harm or take the life of another human without punishment, and abortion is no different.

Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion and accomplishes the same result. And with 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child, there is no such thing as an unwanted child.

An abortion can result in medical complications later in life; the risk of ectopic pregnancies doubles, and the chance of a miscarriage and pelvic inflammatory disease also increases.

In the instance of rape and incest, proper medical care can ensure that a woman will not get pregnant. Abortion punishes the unborn child who committed no crime; instead, it is the perpetrator who should be punished.

Abortion should not be used as another form of contraception.

For women who demand complete control of their body, control should include preventing the risk of unwanted pregnancy through the responsible use of contraception or, if that is not possible, through abstinence.

Many Americans who pay taxes are opposed to abortion, therefore it's morally wrong to use tax dollars to fund abortion.

Those who choose abortions are often minors or young women with insufficient life experience to understand fully what they are doing. Many have lifelong regrets afterwards.

Abortion frequently causes intense psychological pain and stress.

For these reasons I respectfully ask for your Con vote "The United States Should Not Legalize Abortion"
Thank you


First off I didn't understand the wording of the question. It seems convoluted. Second, I am not attacking my opponent personally. I don't know you. I just respond to what you write. Example repeating one word multiple times in one answer. I am pointing facts as you attempted to do. You cannot have different "sources" using the word "may" or "possibility". That isn't definite meaning there is a hole in your argument.

1. That the first 2 points are correct, if you accept the thesis that life begins at conception. There are many scientists that dispute that theory.

2. Same as number 1, but with the added question. Is a mother who miscarries guilty of homicide?

3. Okay...What about pregnancies that are a result of incest or rape? What about The cases were pregnant would severely impair the mothers health? Are the people who are so upset about abortion willing to take on these babies that they claim are wanted?

4. That's funny(Your response). But, studies have shown that pregnancy is more stressful on a woman's body than safe abortions.

5. "Proper medical care" is usually termination of pregnancy. The perpetrator should be punished. Valid point there.

6. Agreed. But very few cases of that happening.

7. Another "that's funny" argument. I agree about the responsible use of contraception. But how do you tell a married woman with seven children, that she should practice abstinence.

8. Tax dollars are not being used for abortion "The Hyde amendment". There many things that I am morally oppose to paying taxes for, but taxes are still paid. WELCOME TO AMERICA!!!

9. Not a valid point because the reason for the abortion, vary.

10. Yes. there are many life experiences that do that, including going into battle. Should we abolish the Armed Forces?

Nobody is advocating that abortion be freely available. However, restricting the choices a woman can make, will bring us back to the dark ages. I believe that in the great majority of cases, women think long and hard before making that decision. and of course there are he cases were a pregnancy would seriously impair the mothers health. Abortion would be performed weather it is legal or not. It is much better to have the procedure done by a train health care provider. To the topic/title of this debate, Abortion is already legal and should not be abolished.

For these reasons I respectfully ask for your Pro vote "In the united states Abortion should be legalized"
Thank You.
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago

Animals are living things they have a heartbeat and ppl eat them...are you also against killing an animal to eat it?
Posted by logicrules 4 years ago
Abortion is legal in the US.
Posted by JaredAWinston 4 years ago
I would continue but debating is over.
Posted by amberlynnsnyder 4 years ago
Thank you Alisha...its a human being a living creature....
Posted by Alisha 4 years ago
It's a living thing. It has a heartbeat. Even the idea of abortion is wrong.
Posted by JaredAWinston 4 years ago
the idea that Abortion SHOULD BE legalized is wrong. It already is. the case of Roe v. Wade signified it
Posted by mariahjane 4 years ago
In my vote I said "an" and then I changed my thought in the middle of it so sorry the article didn't make sense there.
Posted by hunnydew 4 years ago
In my opinion abortion is wrong, but its agents the constitution of the U.S.A.

Why should you use the bible to govern something? Most of the stories are fake. Not all people are Christians
Posted by mariahjane 4 years ago
Your website just proved I am correct. The first six months a woman can get an abortion no matter what state she is in. A late term abortion is different. I'm not attempting to debate with you. I am just making sure you are aware abortions ARE legal in EVERY state. But within a debate about politics, don't quote the bible. There's a separation of church and state.
Posted by amberlynnsnyder 4 years ago
Yes they can its there ruling

Unborn babies are innocent human beings from the moment of conception. They have a fundamental right to life, which must be protected.

The Sixth Commandment of the Bible's Old Testament (Exodus 20:13) is "Thou shalt not kill." Abortion involves killing a human being and defies a commandment from God. [23]

Fetuses feel pain during an abortion according to Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center. "If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be severe and excruciating pain." [24]

The original text of the Hippocratic Oath, the oath that doctors traditionally take when swearing to practice medicine ethically, forbids abortions. One section of the oath reads: "I will not give a woman a pessary [a device inserted into the vagina] to cause an abortion." The modern version of the Hippocratic Oath written in 1964 by Luis Lasagna also forbids abortion in its line, "Above all, I must not play at God." [25]

The Declaration of Independence (33 KB) [51] states that "[A]ll men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Allowing abortion directly contradicts the Founding Fathers' intentions for an inalienable right to life in this country.

Women should use contraceptives, not abortion, to prevent unwanted pregnancies. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study showed that 19-25% of women who received abortions in 2006 had previously had one or more abortions. (474 KB) [52] If abortion were not available, women would not be so careless.

Abortions cause psychological damage. A 2002 peer-reviewed study published by the Southern Medical Journal of mo
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 4 years 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros refutation were kind of weak. Con had a much better case. I would have liked to see a more developped debate.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Same as imabench
Vote Placed by imabench 4 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: cons arguments to me were much more well rounded and convincing than the pro's. Although the pro asks for the con to give sources he himself didnt give any either (kinda hypocritical) so i can only give the con 3 points for the arguments
Vote Placed by mariahjane 4 years 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: I am entirely against abortion but by the debate pro made an reasonable arguments. Con, religion cannot be an argument. Majority rule, minority rights.