The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Is abortion ok in some situations? Or is it totally wrong?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,846 times Debate No: 51739
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (28)
Votes (3)




I believe abortion is alright in certain situations. Say, if a woman got raped, then she is allowed to have an abortion. Or if the baby is going to be born with a fatal disease, or you know it only has such a period of time to live, why would you cause it pain? It's better to save his/her misery than to have to put them through that.


I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate this topic. I will argue that abortion is totally
wrong. I believe that the arguments often used to justify the practice are based upon faulty premises
that have not been thought through thoroughly. I will be arguing my position from the worldview of
a Christian which I believe provides the necessary framework to even enter into the discussion and
speak on moral issues by appealing to an authority higher than myself, that being God Himself.
I define abortion as the act of a human mother choosing for herself to kill her unborn child.


My opponent presupposes that the mother has an inherent right to abort her child in the case of rape
or fatal disease of the child. In order for the mother to exercise such an alleged "human right" would
demand that she herself be given the opportunity to make such a choice. However, such a choice
would not be possible if she was herself aborted. Thus, in order for her to exercise this alleged
"human right", abortion would have to be denied of her own mother. Likewise, if the said right is
objectively true, she would likewise be required to pass on the same right to her own offspring. In
both cases - From mother to child (and subsequent offspring), an endless chain of the passing of
such a right would be morally requires as well as from mother back to grandmother, great
grandmother and so fourth. Logically speaking thus, the moral requirement to pass such a right to
the mother involves an infinite chain in both directions which practically omits the exercise of the
practice at all.


My opponent appeals to cases of rape and disease which on the surface may sound reasonable but
cannot consistently be upheld. One would ask the question: "Why would you abort the child in the
case of rape?" The typical responses given are chiefly (1) That the intercourse was unconsented (2)
The baby is a painful reminder of the rape itself and (3) The baby has no inherent right to occupy
the mother's womb.

In response to (1): Simply that sex was unconsented therefore it is permissible to kill the child is a
non-sequitur. If one follows such logic, the murder of the child is unconsented with the child, and as
a result the mother would by the same logic be rightfully killed as well.

In response to (2): As with (1) the idea that killing an unborn child is justified if the child is a
painful reminder of the rape is likewise a non-sequitur. There could be many things that remind a
mother of an unborn child but it does not follow that killing/destroying such a person/thing is
justified. For example, someone may have witnessed the rape. Every time the mother sees that
witness, they are reminded of the rape. It does not follow that the mother has the right to take the
witness's life. Likewise, if the rape took place outside the public library at night time, it does not
follow that the mother has the right to destroy the library. Just as the witness was not the cause of
the rape, nor was the library responsible for the event, the child produced was not responsible either.

In response to (3), it is an unjustified claim that a baby has no right to occupy a mother's womb. If
one were to presuppose such a notion, then one could likewise say that the mother herself had no
right to occupy her own mother's womb. The idea is that if a violation of personal space occurs, the
death penalty is justified. Since the mother "committed the same alleged violation, it would
logically follow that the death penalty be applied to her as well. The idea would thus extend to the
proponent of free-choice, including my opponent who would have to concede to having violated
their own mother's personal space and as such be prepared to have no further voice on the subject
and prepare to face the death penalty as well.

With regards to the argument from fatal disease, again the result of abortion does not follow. I
operate under the presupposition that we all have a disease as a result of the fall of man. We all have
the disease of mortality and are destined to inevitably die. Using the logic of my opponent that
disease justifies killing, it would be morally acceptable to murder anybody since we are all going to
die, and at the very least it is morally acceptable to kill people with fatal diseases such as cancer,
aids, leukaemia and so on. My opponent presupposes that fatal diseases are a bad thing because they
shorten one's lifespan. It is thus completely absurd to prescribe the worst possible solution - to
shorten it completely. Since life is better than death according to my opponent's presupposition,
abortion is invalid.


Many mothers who abort their unborn child live to regret the decision as a horrible mistake. This
includes mothers who were victims of rape. In one case study involving the interviews of almost
200 rape victims, almost 90% reported to have regretted the decision as wrong (Victims and Victors,
Acorn Books, Reardon, Sobie & Makimma, 2000). This suggests that the decision made by mothers
is often based upon emotional reasons rather than logically sound ones. If the emotion of sorrow,
pain and anger justified the abortion, then the emotion of regret removes that justication.
In order to win this debate my opponent will have to provide a logically sound and robust
foundation to justify the abortion of the unborn child. To make such a moral claim one that has
absolute certainty would require absolute, eternal and unchanging laws. I believe that the Christian
worldview accounts for moral absolutes. My opponent who is arguing in the affirmative for prochoice
will have to provide his/her foundation for such absolutes, for without an absolute
foundation for our morality, my opponent will have no place in speaking on this issue. There can be
no room for doubt when the lives of our most vulnerable hang in the balance.
Debate Round No. 1


As a statement, I am also Christian.
Refutation for Argument 1:
Speaking that the mother, herself, wasn't aborted, she does have the right. It's up to the woman to decide whether she wants to abort. It does not have to go in a chain.

Many women have suffered from rape, and it is also known a significant percentage of men are willing to commit rape if they thought they could get away with it:
Pregnancy can be one of the consequences of rape. While rape is generally considered to be a crime of violence, that doesn"t change the basic fact that it gives the rapist an opportunity to pass genes on to the next generation.
Rape passes human genes on, there could be an actual gene-based tendency, predilection, or influence, toward committing rape.
Modern human societies reject rape. The rapists have at least had a chance to pass those genes onto the next generation.
As it happens, rape is already very often an acceptable reason, even to most opponents, for abortions to be done.

I don"t see abortion as murder. The fetus hasn"t developed itself to such a level that it can be considered murder.
They aren't technically advanced, and merely animal-level in their mental abilities. Not persons, yet. The word "being" has a number of definitions, one of which relates to "existence". So, in that sense, because an unborn human exists, it would qualify as a "human being". Once we"re half way alongst the pregnancy, that"s a whole different story of course. But if it's only a few weeks old, it hasn't developed a mind or personality of its own yet at that point.
Let"s give a scenario here: you"re a father, your daughter of 15 became the victim of rape. And to make matters worse, the unknown person made her pregnant. So there"s your minor daughter, doomed to give birth, from a criminal who raped her nonetheless. That"s something you rather want to abort. Your daughter has the right to keep her live going, giving birth due to that is surely going to destroy it, both socially and financially. Now you can say stuff like "I"ll raise it for her", but not every person is capable to do that, remember that as well.
And it"s scenario"s like that why abortion can be a good thing.
Sometimes the way the fetus was created isn"t good. Sometimes the mother herself would in no way be capable to raise the kid (drug addict, money issues, reasons vary). By aborting the child you safe the live of the mother (and most likely those around her), instead of destroying both her life and that of the fetus who is very likely to live an unhappy live once he gets born. It"s kinda inappropriate to say "for the greater good" here, but I"ll go with that.
Abortion is still a choice, not something for others to control.


My opponent has glossed over my infinite chain argument by simply saying that if the mother who wasn't aborted has the right to abort her own child. No attempt was made to address the argument itself. My opponent simply states that it does not have to go in a chain without explaining why.

Simply put - If free choice to abort is the an inherent right, such a choice is violated if one is aborted, preventing them from making the choice in the future. Likewise since the right must be respected, the mother would have no business in violating the right of her offspring.

My opponent stated that rape gives the rapist the opportunity to pass genes onto the next generation and then states that rape tendencies, predilections or influences toward committing rape. Her argument is based upon a possibility without certainty. That presupposes that a child of a rape victim should never be allowed to have children of their own because they could pass on rape genes. In the attempt to protect the mother's right to abort, you would by the same token take away her child's right to have children.

You say you don't see abortion as murder and then arbitrarily choose the half-way point of a pregnancy as the determining point as to when the unborn can be considered a human being. So five days prior to that half-way point, is the child a human being? How about ten days? Your justification is that their mind and personality hasn't developed yet. Of course it hasn't developed yet, it's still developing. Just like a newborn child. A newborn does not have a fully developed mind or personality either, so are they human beings or not? Of course they are, just like the unborn child whose mind and personality are developing. How can they have a personality and mind to develop in the first place if they are not a human being? So now, you're actually advocating abortion as a valid choice for ALL unborn children at least up to half way, not just those who are the product of rape, because well according to you, they're not human beings right? I've already dealt with that. The fact is that you already recognise that abortion in general is wrong because otherwise you wouldn't have limited the debate to simply talk about special cases like fatal diseases or rape.

Your subsequent scenarios do not strengthen your case either. On of them goes something like this:
A mother is financially strapped, therefore the child should be aborted.
Another non-sequitur. There are many provisions in society already to help mothers take care of children financially. Just because it's "hard" doesn't mean you end the life of the child.

You also predict that the fetus is likely to live an unhappy life. Your use of the term likely is a Freudian slip and acknowledges your inability to predict the future. However, somehow you think that suffering and so on is a valid reason to kill a child. What gives anyone the right to make that determination? If a mother feels that her newborn child will have a bad future due to post-birth circumstances, do you now advocate the killing of the newborn? I believe your arguments are filled with non-sequiturs and that my original arguments still stand.
Debate Round No. 2


Cin forfeited this round.


RoyalSon forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Cin forfeited this round.


My opponent has not provided a rebuttal to my arguments so I don't have anything to respond to. However, I will take this opportunity to buttress my position by calling to question my opponent's inconsistency. In particular, I draw attention to my opponent's presupposition, namely that the Bible is the authoritative word of God. Contrary to her opinion that abortion is compatible with Christian theism, the bible teaches:

1. God works to cause the unborn child to grow and develop. To abort the unborn child is to work against God. (Job 10:11)
2. God knows each individual before they are even born and sanctifies them in the womb (Jeremiah 1:5)
3. God has the right to determine the time of birth and the time of death. (psalms 139:16)
4. Death to the unborn is considered a sin in the Old Testament punishable by death. (Exodus 21:22-25). The life of the unborn child is compared with the life of the perpetrator. Thus one cannot argue that the unborn child lacks any particular faculty to be endowed with the same right to live as adults.
5. God refers to the unborn as children (Genesis 25:21-22)
6. Mary is referred to as "the Mother of my Lord" (Luke 1:43.) This shows that one is a mother before the birth of her child, not just after it.

But perhaps the most devastating blow to my Christian opponent's position can be seen when we contemplate Mary the mother of Jesus. Supposing she did not wish to conceive a Son. It was her body after all, and as pro-choicer advocates proclaim - the unborn child has no right to be in the mother's womb. This would lead to the conclusion that Mary would have been well within her rights to abort her child, that child being Jesus Christ of course. Cin, had you been in Mary's place, do you believe you would have been within your rights to have an abortion?

I contemplate a response such as - "That's different, because this was God who was involved." But my opponent already disregards the fact that God is involved in forming and developing the bodies of the unborn anyway. Such a response would presuppose that God sovereignly has the right over life and trump my opponent's "choice" in the hypothetical situation given above. To this I say God alone has the sovereign right over life period. To take matters into your own hands is to interfere with the work of God and to usurp His position of authority over life.

Finally, to abort the unborn child is to prevent them from coming to Jesus. I would be interested to see how my opponent reconciles her position with Matthew 19:14, which reads "But Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

None of the points my opponent has offered have given any valid positive reason to support pro-choice. I believe on the contrary, my presentation demonstrated it to be a position fraught with inconsistencies and contradictions. The pro-life position is Biblical, morally and logically superior and true.
Debate Round No. 4


I concede from this debate. I am very sorry, as I have not had enough time; busy with school.


Out of respect for my opponent who could not continue, due to external constraints, I will refrain from posting a conclusion for this final round.

Thank you Cin for your participation.
Debate Round No. 5
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyalSon 2 years ago
I'd like both sides of the abortion debate share their thoughts regarding Emily Letts:
Posted by kimmi 2 years ago
abortion is never ok i would know first hand because if it wasnt for my grandmother i would not be alive right now because my mom was 16 and pregnent and didnt want me and she was going to abort me and i would never be able to do things right now to help out my community and other states
Posted by Cygnus 2 years ago
Typo alert!

"I'd like to go through the various versions that you mentioned in your previous post regarding Ex. 22:28-29."

I meant Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
Posted by Cygnus 2 years ago
"If a man find a damsel, a virgin, who is not betrothed, and *lay hold on her*, and lie with her, and they be found, then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath *humbled* her; he may not put her away all his days." - DBT

"A man might find a virgin girl who is not engaged and *force her to have sexual relations with him*. If other people see this happen, he must pay the girl"s father 20 ounces of silver. And the girl will become the man"s wife, because he used her for sexual sin. He cannot divorce her all his life." - ERV

"If a man shall find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and *lay hold on her*, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give to the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." - WBT

If a man find a lady who is a virgin, who is not pledged to be married, and *lay hold on her*, and lie with her, and they be found; then the man who lay with her shall give to the lady's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has humbled her; he may not put her away all his days." - WEB

In all of these version except for maybe the NLT, which presents a very watered-down version, it is clear that we're talking about taking a woman by force and having sex with her. I think you want to stay away from the NIV simply because it explicitly mentions rape. The ISV, HCSB, ISV, NET, and GWT, all *explicitly* use the word RAPE.

You can try to convince me that this passage refers to consensual sex all you want. You're wrong. It's about rape. Period.
Posted by Cygnus 2 years ago
One more thing I wanted to go over before I get busy with the rest of the evening. You said, "Again, Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is consentual sex, not rape."

I'd like to go through the various versions that you mentioned in your previous post regarding Ex. 22:28-29.

"Suppose a man has intercourse with a young woman who is a virgin but is not engaged to be married. If they are discovered, he must pay her father fifty pieces of silver. Then he must marry the young woman because he *violated* her, and he may never divorce her as long as he lives" - NLT

"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and *lay hold on her*, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath *humbled* her, he may not put her away all his days." - KJV

"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and *lay hold on her*, and lie with her, and they be found;, Then the man that lay with her shall give to the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he has humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." - AKJV

"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and *lay hold on her*, and lie with her, and they be found; then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty'shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath *humbled* her; he may not put her away all his days." - ASV

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not espoused, and *taking* her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment : He that lay with her shall give to the father of the maid fifty sides of silver, and shall have her to wife, because he hath *humbled* her: he may not put her away all the days of his life." - DRV
Posted by Cygnus 2 years ago
Another thing I just noticed in the verse 25 and verses 28-29.

Verse 25 says that the rapist is to be killed. However, verses 28-29 say that he's supposed to marry her, pay the father for damage goods, and he gets to keep his life.

How is this consistent with the word of a supposed holy God?
Posted by Cygnus 2 years ago

Let's clear up the air here.

Verse 25 says, "But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die." (NIV)

28-29 says, "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." (NIV)

What part am I missing? Because neither of these verses refer to consensual sex. And I don't care about Exodus right now. That's a whole new nightmare of a book in and of itself. We're talking about Deuteronomy. Besides, you're destroying your own argument by bringing up Exodus because, again, the woman has absolutely no say in the matter. What if she doesn't want to marry the guy in relation to Ex. 22:16?

If you don't like the NIV, which version are you using?

So far I have asked you at least 3 questions that you haven't answered. I promise I will answer yours after you answer these:

1. Is the price of adultery worthy of death? I'm not asking Jesus, I'm asking you.
2. How is it fair for a rape victim for her father to be monetarily compensated, as well as being forced to marry her rapist and never having a say in the matter?
3. Why can't YHWH keep his supposed word absolutely inerrant, no matter which version?
Posted by Christtheway24 2 years ago
Royalson has done an excellent job demonstrating how Cin doesn't have a foundation to stand on that is rational
Posted by RoyalSon 2 years ago
Cygnus, I earlier typed this: "The issue of rape is taken with the preceding verses: 25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die :"

And yet you managed to ask this question: "Deuteronomy 22:25 is also a heinous verse, as are 23-24. And how do you know the verse 25 refers to consensual sex?"

I just told you it's not consensual by referring to it as rape!

Then you typed this:
"And is the crime of adultery worthy of death? If so, you'd better gather up as many stones as you can and start stoning people. YHWH commands it."

Actually all sin is worthy of death, hence why in the pericope adulterae the Jewish accusers walked away when Christ invited those who were without sin to cast the first stone. They realised that they would be under the same judgement. Jesus even explained that even to simply look at a woman in order to lust after her is to commit adultery with her in one's heart.

The law was in effect in the theocracy that operated among the Israelites during the days of the Old Convenant. We are now living in New Convenant times, in which Christ has fulfilled the law and taken our sins upon Him. I am not a Jew. I am not living under the Old Covenant Theocracy. Hence I will not cast a stone upon those who commit adultery.

However, all of this ignores the fact that you are arguing on moral grounds. What is your foundation? You've been having quite a free ride so far attacking the Bible, but what is the absolute basis for your morality? If you are atheist, then how do you account for moral absolutes? You have to borrow from my worldview to even make moral arguments.
Your morality includes the idea that:

Humans have more rights than animals (whom you're supposedly related to) but God doesn't have more rights than His creatures.

Please justify this absurd position.
Posted by RoyalSon 2 years ago
Cygnus, you said you take my criticism kindly but provided no response to the fact that your accusation of "might makes right" falls back on you with the ontological inferiority you presuppose upon the unborn child.

You claim not to make a straw-man and yet manage to come up with this: "All unborn human life is precious. Well, except for those people or those over there. Pff...and those people over there? Forget about it!" You conveniently leave out the fact that this was the wrath of God being poured out upon His own people for their spitting in God's face so-to-speak, abusing the prosperity and blessings God bestowed upon them.

Allow me to make some observations - It is interesting that you attribute particular dignity to human beings. Why so? Is it alright for humans to slay animals who may not have even done anything right to them when you could happily live on plants? I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that you're not vegetarian. Do you have the right to consume your relatives? I'm assuming you believe in evolution and believe you are "distant relatives with all other animals".

You ask why God is not held to the same standards as humans. Ok let me turn this on you. Do you give equal rights to insects? To animals? Insects? Plants? If not, why do you think you can judge your maker who is infinitely greater than you while insisting other creatures to have no such ability?

You complain about a price put on a crime. I'm wondering where these moral absolutes come from to justify your complaint. Again, Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is consentual sex, not rape.

You also call a mistranslation, splitting hairs. Err, no it's not. And you seem to think that a mistranslation means God has failed to preserve His word. Actually, we do have the preserved word, in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.

As for translations that comport with the reading I gave, see: NLT, KJV, AKJV,ASV, DRV,DBT, ERV,WBT,WEB. You also totally ignored that Exodus 22:16-17 already explains the
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by WilliamsP 2 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 Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro for her gracious concession. The rest of the points are tied because both debaters, in my view, performed well.
Vote Placed by kimmi 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: abortion is never right in any situation you should never kill a baby i would know i was one of the babys who are lucky to be alive today.
Vote Placed by Dennybug 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded!