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

Is abortion ok? (should it be legal?)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 11/21/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,464 times Debate No: 82902
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (1)




Simple. I will argue why abortion is not ok and should not be legal. Use the 1st turn to accept. I'm ready when you are.


I accept your debate

Keeping this very simple. I will argue why abortion is okay and why this justification should make it legal.
Good luck. Meow.
Debate Round No. 1


A little background on Roe vs. Wade before I fully delve in.
1971 - The Supreme Court agrees to hear the case filed by Norma McCorvey, known in court documents as Jane ROE, against Henry WADE, the district attorney of Dallas County from 1951 to 1987, who enforced a Texas law that prohibited abortion, except to save a woman's life.

OK. So in 1971 abortion is illegal unless it is to save the woman's life.

January 22, 1973 - The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, affirms the legality of a woman's "right" to have an abortion.

June 17, 2003 - Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) files a motion with the U.S. District Court in Dallas to have the case overturned and asks the court to consider new evidence that abortion hurts women. Included are 1,000 affidavits from women who say they regret their abortions.

At this point not even the defendant agrees with the ruling.

When Roe vs. Wade was passed in 1973 we hadn't invented the 3D sonogram. It was believed that it was just a blob, not human yet.


I thank my opponent for posting his argument on this topic,

As I mentioned earlier, my stance will revolve around why it is justified for a woman to willingly want to abort during pregnancy, I will state my facts below and I will then leave it to Con to respond accordingly. Now, I shall present my brief case.

Now, in most parts of Europe, Asia, and North America, abortion is legal on all grounds and is open upon request. [1] These countries have advocated for it for many reasons, but one of the most important being the concern over not just from the possibility of death, but also from rape or disabilityy. Taking an example from the US, statistics show that 42% of women that opt for having abortions have relatively low incomes, which leaves them unable to bring up their child and in rape cases, leaves the child unwanted.

s://; alt="" />

Sources -

Debate Round No. 2


Statistically speaking hardly any of the abortions committed had ANYTHING AT ALL to do with her life being in danger or because of rape (less than 1% are because of rape or incest). It's murder for the sake of convenience. "I'm not ready." "I didn't ask for this." "I don't wanna do it." And so on. People reading this know it's true. How many people do you know that had an abortion? Now how many were because of the aforementioned reasons (rape, incest, life in danger)? I bet not many at all. On the other hand everybody knows PLENTY (whether they realize it or not) who have out of convenience. After all, we are talking about more than 99 percent of them (who fall into this category)...

Technology has debunked all the propaganda used to get it passed and make it seem acceptable.
Also, it's not about a female's right.
A) what about the rights of the females being aborted?
B) the govt. tells a woman what she can or cannot do with her body all the time. Consider prostitution and drug laws.


I will try to cover as many points as I can,

First of all, stating that it was 'Murder for the sake of convience' is simply too patronizing to what I was trying to convey, abortion is an essential requirement for those who cannot afford to bring up their children, as I mentioned with the poverty issue, and women themselves do not ask to be 'raped', and they are forced to concieve a child that they were probably aware that from the start they couldn't bring up. Con has put forward the claim that the 1% abortion statistic for rape as trivial. However, my points do link together, 16% of abortions are made because the woman's life would have been changed too much, this also includes cases of rape.

In response to the last points -

A) Abortion is a choice based on the interests/needs of the female. The 'Right to Privacy' supports this.

B) If anything, prostitution and drug laws should complement abortion, as there is little chance a child can be brought up properly if a prostitute gets pregnant.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
There are check marks underneath this comment box that say "email me when..." So just check them off and make sure you have notifications active on your profile.
Posted by KingofEverything 2 years ago
How do you get notifications for debates you posted comments on, whiteflame?
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
obliviousmassacre, this is how it's done site-wide. If you want to see the voting standards, they're on display here for everyone to see:

But given that you probably have problems with those, let's discuss it. Yes, abortion is an issue over which many people are biased. However, simply being biased in how you perceive the topic doesn't mean you're necessarily biased with regards to the debate itself. Voters should be able to separate themselves from their biases when they vote on debates, otherwise it simply becomes a competition of who gets the most like-minded people to vote. I know I personally have voted on quite a few debates for the pro-life debater, despite being pro-choice myself. Frankly, I find it a little shocking that you'd prefer a system where everyone's decided who's going to win before they even read the debate.

I'm not sure which particular vote removal you're assessing, but the standard is that voters need to address specific arguments made. The reason for that is that it actually requires that the voter read and assess the arguments instead of skimming them. That kind of vote could appear on practically any debate, and frankly, shouldn't be allowed as a result. A vote should clearly be addressing a single debate, and not all possible debates where one appeared dominant.

I'm not clear on why you think I'm biased. I didn't report any of these votes, other people did. I've merely analyzed them to see whether or not they meet the standards, hence there was a report on a vote that I didn't find problematic (I wouldn't have reported it personally, given the chance).

I personally think that voters should be held to at least some basic standards. You might not like having to deal with moderation on voting, but there are two sides to this issue: the voters and the debaters. The latter want a decent quality of votes on their debates, especially after having spent ample time on them.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
I don't view that as unreasonable. People should expect that voters take the time to read through the debate and give specific feedback on how they viewed at least some of the arguments. The voting process need not be time-intensive or lengthy, but voters should show a basic level of respect to the debaters and make their votes clear and easily understood by the debaters without being incredibly vague. I'd say that's not asking too much.
Posted by obliviousmassacre 2 years ago
whiteflame: it seems ridiculous to me that you can take votes away from the debate, especially when one of your reasons is that a person was biased toward one side while voting. This is a debate about abortion: everyone is going to lean one way or the other before they read it, so everyone is going to be biased.

One person voted for Pro because they cited some sources and rebutted all of Con's points, while Con didn't cite any sources and did not refute any of Pro's points. In a debate that isn't particularly good, like this debate, those are completely justified reasons for voting one way or the other. Yet you removed their votes because, "The voter doesn't reference a single argument made in the debate by either side..." They don't need to.

You seem pretty biased as you reported all of these votes, and yet Con wins by 3 points after you reported the vote that got Con the win, yet didn't remove it. Seeing things like this makes me not want to use this site because there cannot be an honest debate without honest voting. Removing votes for this reason or that is not being honest and makes it seem like the mods can determine the winners of debates based on their own feelings or opinions on the debate subject.

You should be allowed to vote for the side you agree with in a situation like this, where neither debater made very convincing arguments, and not have to worry about your vote being removed.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: NothingSpecial99// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter sufficiently covers the arguments and explains their decision. To be clear, while one of the reporters did present a concern about its consistency, that is not a part of how moderation assesses votes and determines whether or not they"re sufficient.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: famousdebater// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: The neg. case needed to show me why abortion is not okay. Without citing any of their arguments and statistics this does not only completely invalidate their case to the point that there case and arguments have no meaning under the resolution but it also violates their sources points since they did not use any sources to back up statistics and claims. Pro used a source when it was necessary and I couldn't buy Con's rebuttal because it also needed sources to show me why I should buy their statistics over Pro's. Therefore Con's rebuttal fails and Pro's arguments succeed. The rebuttals to Con's case from Pro are strong by Pro too. I do not need to zoom in on this in any particular detail because this (again) was not sourced and therefore the credibility of the arguments was poor and I buy the affirmative case of the negating case. The resolution is affirmed due to this.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments points are only nebulously explained. The voter doesn"t reference a single argument made in the debate by either side, merely pointing to a lack of statistics and claiming that that that sinks Con"s argument. The voter has to directly reference arguments in the debate and explain why the arguments themselves were faulted or fundamentally flawed without statistical backing. (2) The source point allocation is insufficiently explained. The voter states that "Pro used a source when it was necessary", but it"s unclear how that source was important to the success of his arguments.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: fire_wings// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: I will give Pro this win because of two reasons. My first reason is that sources were only from Pro, and he was the only one who cited sources. Next of all, it is the arguments. Both had not that good arguments, however Con had dropped Pro's only point about why it is justified for a woman to do abortion. Pro rebuts all of Con's arguments. This was a easy win to Pro.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments points are insufficient. The voter cannot merely state that "Pro rebuts all of Con's arguments." If Pro did rebut all of these points, the voter needs to explain how those rebuttals were effective, and not just that they were. (2) Source points are insufficient. The voter needs to do more than just say that one side had sources while the other didn't. If one side was the only one that had sources, the voter merely needs to point to the importance of those sources in their arguments, but without that, the voter just seems to be voting on who had the most sources rather than any substance.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: magpie// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). The prime argument for PRO is: Abortion is justified because the woman can not afford to raise a child. The same argument would be just AS VALID TO KILL A FIVE YEAR OLD.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain source points. (2) The voter inserts clear personal bias into the decision, actually responding to an issue they personally disagree with and not using arguments given in the debate. (3) The voter has to analyze more than just one side of the debate, yet he clearly only addresses one of Pro's arguments.
Posted by EverlastingMoment 2 years ago
Thanks for the vote, Nothing. However, I would like to disagree on one thing, the source I used linked up with the rape statistics which were some of the reasons these countries advocated it. Though there was not enough space to put a source in. Either way, thank you for voting!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by NothingSpecial99 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 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: RFD in comments