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

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should not ban abortion.

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 5 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/30/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 711 times Debate No: 92044
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)




I would like to thank harrytruman for accepting this debate.

First Round is Rules and definitions by Pro and acceptance by Con.
Second Round is Opening Arguments, no rebuttals by Con.
Third Round is Rebuttals.
Forth Round is defend your own arguments.
No semantics
No machine gunning arguments
No source spamming.
No Google docs
Sources may be placed in the comments section if needed.
Minimum ELO to vote is 2000.
A violation of any of the above rules shall result in an automatic forfeiture of the person who violated the rules.

United States Federal Government- The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people. (

Abortion- Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetusfrom the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. (

Should- must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): (


The fifth amendment to the constitution says:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

According to this clause, the fundamental human rights of life, liberty, and property should not be infringed without due process of law, last I checked, the woman is not Judge, Jury, and executioner, an abortion clinic is not a court of law, and "it's my body" isn't a legitimate violation to constitute the death penalty. Thus, abortion ought to be banned.
Debate Round No. 1


My opponent has argued in the first round which is a violation of the rules that I had posted in Round 1 that the rules stated, "First Round is Rules and definitions by Pro and acceptance by Con." Second round is where arguments begin. As a result, "A violation of any of the above rules shall result in an automatic forfeiture of the person who violated the rules." Since my opponent broke the rules, he forfeits the debate, but for the sake of debating, I shall post my arguments.

Contention 1: The Constitutional Battle

Many opponents to abortion constantly argue that Abortion is unconstitutional. This is completely far from fact. Abortion, in it of itself, is Constiutional. The first is that it protects the right to privacy. This is important as it shows that you own your body [1]. When we extend this all across the issues we can see that this can be extended to other key areas making sure the law has to protect your privacy. This includes things like limiting just how far the TSA can search at air ports. Another is preention of organ harvesting by the government. Unlike China, the US is not able to simply harvest the organs of prisoners nor the dead without their consent. Why is this you may ask? This is simply due to the fact that the individual owns their body. If you take that away, then you open up a whole new area the government can do that they haven't been able to do before. All of which are immoral acts. Roe V Wade, was a great decission for limiting the government.

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to thejurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the UnitedStates and of the State whereinthey reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge theprivileges orimmunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any Statedeprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without dueprocess of law; nordeny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
US Constitution, 14th Amendment

A lot of people site the Constitution for the "Right to Life," but the Constiutional fact is that, you have to be born in the United States in order for these rights to apply to you. So even though it may or may not be alive, it is not considered a US citizen, hence have Constitutional rights, until they are born, not at conception.

Contention 2: Abortion reduces Crime

In the 1980s, crime was increasing and many people were fearing that the 90s would be a mega crime decade, but that never happened. Many people tend to site Gun control or many other factors, but the real solution was abortion. Crime, all across the board, began to fall. The reason is that all of the unwanted babbies that would be born into poverty and would turn to crime were never born. Welfare, crime, drug use, and a long list of other criminal activities fell because of this [2]. Homocide, and property crimes had fallen by 30% which had been at the lowest rates since the end of the end of the Prohibition. We also need to look at a lot of the factors that play into this. In this research they found that a lot of the women that would have had abortion, their children would engage in illegal activities harming soceity [5]. Studies by University of California found that 76% of the women who are turned away from abortion are likely to become unemployed, on welfare, compared to the 40% that have abortions [6]. 30% is a huge difference. They are also more likely to stay with their abusive partner leading to a higher amount of domestic violence. This is something that no one, men, women, or children, have to be forced to live through. Making abortion illegal will cause these harmful things to occur by forcing a women to have an unwanted child.

The Colorado Department of Health and Environment stated that, "unintended pregnancies are associated with birth defects, low birth weight, maternal depression, increased risk of child abuse, lower educational attainment, delayed entry into prenatal care, a high risk of physical violence during pregnancy, and reduced rates of breastfeeding.[3]"

On top of this, the CDC reports that 49% of all pregnancies are unintended [4]. We can see that by making abortion illegal, we can see that we would be severly harming the mother as well as leading to harm for the child which would harm there lives leading to much of the life of crime that would have had not occured. A child that is not wanted and one that would cause massive harm as well as dettremental effects to soceity should not have to be born into this world as it would simply just cause everyone pain.

1. (
2. (
3. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, "Family Planning Program," (accessed Apr. 21, 2014)
4. (
5. John J. Donohue, and Steven D. Levitt, "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 2001 (Despite admitting to an error in one of this study's tables, Levitt has stated that "the story we put forth in the paper is not materially changed by the coding error." See Steven D. Levitt, "Everything in Freakonomics Is Wrong!,", Nov. 28, 2005)
6. Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), University of California at San Francisco, "Turnaway Study," (accessed Apr. 22, 2014)


harrytruman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


All points extended.


Sorry, I had issues accessing this debate, here is my response:

The right to privacy:

Actually, the woman body is not the fetus's body, that's why they're called the fetus's and woman's bodies, the woman may have the right to own her body, but she has no right to own the fetus's body. Also, if you want to read the Declaration of independence it says that everyone is entitled to life, liberty, and property. If I went to China and murdered someone, then came back to the US and got caught, I'd get arrested, even though it wasn't an American citizen. The 14th amendment says that people are citizens by being born in the US because you can know when someone is born, not when they are conceived, and it doesn't deprive protections to people not born in the US, it only guarantees them to those who are. Also, see the 8th amendment, it says NO PERSONS, not just American Citizens.

Abortion reduces crime:
No, corelation is not causation, besides, I could point out a different coorelation which shows the opposite, in Switzerland, the abortion rate is 7.1 per 1,000 women {1}, in the Uited States it is 13.9 per 1,000 women {2}, the US has 12,555 homicides a year, Switzerland has 42 {3}.

Debate Round No. 3


With this being the first round I shall go over everything for this debate and then close it out.

Rule Violation

With this debate end, I would like to remind you that my opponent has violated the rules by arguing in round one, "First Round is Rules and definitions by Pro and acceptance by Con." As a result, "A violation of any of the above rules shall result in an automatic forfeiture of the person who violated the rules." Even if I lose every other argument, we can see that I would still win this debate since he violated the rules of the debate.

Contention 1: The Constitution Battle

My opponent's statement on "women body is not the fetus body" is rediculious. I could simply say, since sperm is alive men shouldn't masterbate. It's a very similar argument. As for the DoI, it doesn't matter as that's not the law of the land, the Constitution is. Of course you would get arrested since you broke Chinese law and the US would arrest you and turn you over to the Chinese. My opponent stated that the 8th Amendment protects, PERSONS, but he never actually defines what a person is. The 14th Amendment claims that you are an American citizen when you are born and a fetus is unborn, thus not a citizen, nor a person.

Here I would like to ask my opponent, which would you perfer, the mother give birth, but die in the process where the child might not even survive either, or abort the child to let the mother live? Either way, this is a catch-22, either way, my opponent will select a non-Pro-Life answer.

Contention 2: Abortion reduces crime.

I find it funny that my opponent states "Corelation is not causation" and then provides just that. His own argument negates itself. My study was one that actually observed the two events in actions and studied them, while my opponent just pulled numbers from random.

With that I thank you and please vote Pro.


First of all, you say I violated the rules but not what rule I violated, forfeiture sure, but I had 5 other debates going.

And like you said, Chinese Law is not the law of the land right? Either way a Chinese person is still a person. And you dropped my point in regards to the 14 amendment, just because it grants protections to a group of people doesn't mean that all other groups are excluded, and as I stated before, the 8th amendment insures this right to all persons. A person is a human being, some thing with a complete human genome as well as a functioning system of organs.
So your comparison of sperm is irrelevant since sperm do. It have a complete human genome and conception doesn't separate the cell into an organised basis, and sperm doesn't have functional organs.

Also, a fetus isn't a human until 40 days, so the mother should do an abortion before that 400 day Mark.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Omniscient_Debater 2 years ago
Harrytruman, you contradict yourself more than the Bible does.
Posted by Udel 2 years ago
Pro argues that abortion is constitutional, because the constitution recognizes privacy. Pro says the right to life is given by the government once you are born in the U.S. and not before birth. Pro then argues that abortion reduces crime, the crime a mother would have to commit to support her child or to have an illegal abortion. Con then forfeited a round but I won't award conduct points against him just yet. Con says the fetus lives within the woman's body so the woman does not have privacy against things that are growing inside her. Con challenges Pro's argument on abortion reducing crime. Pro responds that his studies are better than Con's stating the opposite, and then Con is arguing against himself in saying correlation and causation don't go but then presenting a study that links the 2. Pro says that living things inside a person's body don't automatically have the right to life (like sperm) which is true since bacteria doesn't either. Pro also says that by the constituion standards the fetus is not a person with the right to life because they are unborn. Con's last round is gibberish, talking about Chinese statistics and when the abortion cut off should be. Con's last argument also talks about the 14th amendment and he says fetuses are deserving of due process (amendment 14) under the law, but Pro responded that fetuses don't have constitutional rights because they are unborn. Con never challenges the argument on fetus rights as it pertains to the government standards, so Pro wins the argument proving that fetuses do not have governmental rights. Even though pro is wrong about the privacy part of the constitution (which Con does not challenge). Con does not respond to Pro's point about why all living things somehow deserve the right to life, his last round was just a gobbled bare assertion.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Udel 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: comment section RFD
Vote Placed by fire_wings 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Rule Violation
Vote Placed by Robert_Weiler 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con made good arguments, but violated the rules set forth for the debate, thus forfeiting.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Violation of the FF rule and round structure.
Vote Placed by Sam7411 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: In regards to conduct, Con forfeited Round 1 due to a violation of a rule that stated that the first round was only acceptance (A violation of any of the above rules shall result in an automatic forfeiture of the person who violated the rules), and Round 2.