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

Resolved: Abortion is morally permissible.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 564 times Debate No: 67092
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




I thank Harold_Lloyd for accepting this debate as it's been in the works, but got placed on the back burner due to the DDO Elections and all the drama that comes with it.

First round is rules and definitions by Con, Pro will begin his constructives.
Round 2: Con's Constructives (No rebuttles), Pro's rebuttles.
Round 3: Con's rebuttles, and Pro's rebuttles and conclusion.
Round 4: Con's rebuttle and conclusion, Pro will post "No round as agreed upon"
If Pro says anything else in Round 4 then what was agreed to then it's an automatic forfeit.
No cussing
No Semantics

Abortion- a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus (

morally- concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior (

Accepting means that you accept these rules and definitions.


If abortion is the highest moral choice under any circumstance at all, then abortion must be deemed to be morally permissible.
For example, if continuing a pregnancy will inevitably result in the death of the host mother, then abortion may be the path of least harm, and therefore morally permissible.

If we step out of the Judeo-Christian moral code, we find that in Islam, a fetus is not human until four months of gestation.
Abortion before that is allowable, given appropriately reasonable purpose.

While Hinduism sees abortion as morally reprehensible, the Hindu way is to choose the action that will do least harm to all involved: the mother and father, the fetus and society.
Debate Round No. 1


Contention 1: Self-Awareness and the value of Human Life.

One of the arguments for abortion is that the fetus is not self-aware, but the fetus becomes fully aware during the 24th week of Pregnancy, which is why many abortions in the 3rd Trimester are illegal. ( Many people believe that is the qualifications for the starting of a FDH (fully developed human) is when the creature is self-aware, but this has many flaws. One being that in cases of sleep and in cases of comas. Under these situations the person is not self-aware, does this mean that they are no longer a FDH until they have awoken? However the person’s ability to be self-aware is irrelevant to their personhood as it is an inherent capacity for self-awareness.

"In fact, philosophers often use the terms self and person interchangeably: a capacity for self-awareness is necessary for full personhood.” (

If that is true then we can see that it’s degrading as different levels of self-awareness would vary across the board. Meaning that certain people like that of “special” peoples and those in different medical conditions would not be considered FDH and be up for “abortion” depicting as such in the Unwind Trilogy by Neil Shusterman. Meaning that they would also be considered less of a person than the average American. With the quote bellow we can see that people are people because they are human, not due to something they gain nor loose in their lifetime, so this can work all across the board in this debate.

"Humans have value simply because they are human, not because of some acquired property they may gain or lose in their lifetime." (Scott Klusendorf, "Advanced Pro-Life Apologetics" Biola University lecture notes)

By accepting the legality of abortion we can see that we are endorsing that a human life is disposable as Pope Francis called it the “Throw away culture.” We get rid of the unborn like they are unwanted pickles on our Hamburghers from McDonald’s and just imagine the horror of never getting to see the light of day? When we look at our stages of life we can see that from it was you there at conception and you’re the same now (though taller and more mentally developed) and we can see that it was you at birth and you are here debating me, so we can see that it was you in the womb, not the body of something that would later become you. This means that once you were fetus, if it is wrong to kill you now, then it was wrong to kill you then. (

In the end we can see that at the least a fetus has the same FDH levels that of a person in a coma or asleep.

Contention 2: Aftermath effects.

In China, women their generally tend to have the world’s lowest rates of breast cancer, but the numbers have been skyrocketing so the Chinese government launched several studies into the incident and has found that an abortion has the chance to increase the rate of breast cancer after an abortion by 600%! This study was backed by the New York City Science Advisor to the Coalition of Breast Cancer/abortion, Joel Bind. Bind has stated that the link found between the two is that of a cigarette link to lung cancer. ( Dr. Jane Orient has found that the reasoning behind this is that estrogen increases by 2000% during the end of the 1st Trimester which in turn increases vulnerability to estrogen-fueled cancers and that a full pregnancy decreases the risk of milk producing stem cells to divide into that of cancerous cells. (

As we can see from above is that there is a direct corrilation between abortions and breast cancer as the statistics show that it's near 1 abortion per breast cancer incident.

They have also found that abortion causes PASS (Post Abortion Stress Syndrome) which leaves women in mental anguish similiar to the effects of shel shock. (


That made for some interesting reading, but it's not actually relevant to the debate, for the most part.

If anything, it suggests that early abortion is morally permissible.

If one is willing accept that abortion can be justified in some circumstance, one has to acknowledge that there are times when abortion might even be the most morally compelling course of action.
Debate Round No. 2


I extend all points as we can see from my Klusendorf quote and from the Fetus theory that in no circumstances is abortion permissable. It is because of the fact that it doesn't mater how much fetus has they are still a person and that even if they do not have such self-awareness in their early stages they still have the same FDH levels of that of a person in a coma and a person sleeping which does not justify abortion nor the murder of said peoples.
I also extend on the fact that abortion lowers the value of human life.
House Representative Randy Hultgren (R-IL) wrote "When we tell one another that abortion is okay, we reinforce the idea that human lives are disposable, that we can throw away anything or anyone that inconveniences us." (Randy Hultgren, "Americans Should Not Have to Pay for Abortions through Obamacare,", Jan. 21, 2014)
Contention 3: Life of the Mother

In 2012, the Dublin Declaration on Mental Healthcare reached a ground breaking finding that abortion is not necissary to save the life of a mother as 140 scientists observed this study. They released the following findings.

-“As experienced practitioners and researchers in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.

-We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.

-We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.” (



Abortions are sometimes needed to save the lives of pregnant women, several medical experts said in response to comments from Rep. Joe Walsh.

Illinois Republican Rep. Joe Walsh falsely claimed that there wasn"t "one instance" where an abortion would be necessary to save the mother"s life. But the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said that more than 600 women die each year due to complications from pregnancy and childbirth, and more would die if they didn"t have access to abortion. After that, Walsh quickly backed down.

"This is a Catholic country" was what Irish doctors told Savita Halappanavar after she learned she was miscarrying her pregnancy and asked for an abortion to avoid further complications. She spent three days in agonizing pain, eventually shaking, vomiting and passing out. She again asked for an abortion and was refused, because the fetus still had a heartbeat.

Then she died.

She died of septicaemia and E.Coli. She died after three and a half days of excruciating pain. She died after repeatedly begging for an end to the pregnancy that was poisoning her. Her death would have been avoided if she had been given an abortion when she asked for it " when it was clear she was miscarrying, and that non-intervention would put her at risk. But the fetus, which had no chance of survival, still had a heartbeat. Its right to life quite literally trumped hers.

The idea that there is no medical rationale for abortion is dismissed.
Debate Round No. 3


Contention 1: Self-Awareness and the value of Human Life.

This point was dropped so please extend it across the board. This Contention is important and should win me the debate, because of the fact that if the fetus has the same FDH level as that of a sleeping human or a someone in a coma it makes it wrong to kill a fetus as he has dropped the contention and silence is comfirmance in this debate so he agrees. He also drops the it's wrong to kill me now and I was a fetus so it was wrong to kill me then argument.

Contention 2: Aftermath effects

My opponent has dropped this argument which shows that abortions are harmful for the mother I also will exend this across the board.

Contention 3: The life of the mother.

I would like to state that my opponent hasn't brought up any argument last round as they are all just quotations from articles he has linked, but reguardless I will continue to refute them.

My opponent doesn't actually refute my argument of my Chinese and Irish studies showing that people could save the life of the mother without abortion. With this study still standing it is irrelivant to how many people die from birth as I could counter and state some numbers stating that more people have died due to breast cancer to people dying of birth. According to the CDC 40,000 people have died due to breast cancer in 2012 which trumps the 600 who died due to birth as mentioned by Pro. ( This shows that on balance, the harms of abortion is more dangerous for the mother than not having an abortion.

With that the resolution is negated. Thank you and please vote Con.



Harold_Lloyd forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Oliark 1 year 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 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: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Rubikx 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited so thats an auto loss in my books. However, I would have gone with con anyway as they had a stronger argument.