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

Should abortion 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/21/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 327 times Debate No: 73939
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




People will argue that abortion should not be legal because of immorality to the bible but what is immoral to the bible that is moral to our everyday lives 1. Women's Rights 2. Banks 3. Gay Marriage(some find this still immoral) But woman's rights also should extend to the right to what they can and cannot do with their bodies. When does life start some say when an egg is fertilized but could that egg become a FULLY FUNCTIONING human being no if it was not in the womb, the earliest survivor of a premature birth is 21 weeks; even doctors will not provide assistance if it is befor the 24 week cut off. if life is said as something that can live without the womb than the earliest a human is alive is 24 weeks into the pregnancy. So life is at twenty four weeks but if the woman has known she was pregnant for 22 weeks than has she had enough time to think. Most women would have the hardest decision of their life during this 24 weeks, the real question on abortion is not if its should be legal but when should the cut off for an abortion be.


I will set up the format for my Con constructive case, and then I will present my rebuttals to the Pro. Good luck! :) My case will use a single syllogism to prove that abortion should be federally illegal.

The killing of an innocent human should be illegal.
Abortion is the killing of an innocent human.
Therefore, abortion should be illegal.

Now, I don't expect anyone to have a problem with the first premise, but where I expect to see some debate is over the second premise, that abortion is the killing of an innocent human, so that will be what I defend in my first case. This premise assumes three things about abortion: First, that it is a killing, second, that the victim is innocent, and third, that the victim is human. So I will tackle these three claims:

1. Abortion is a killing. By definition, to kill is to end the life of ____ (M-W). This means that in order for abortion to be a killing, a fetus must be alive, and this is where the biggest pro-choice argument lies. Most pro-choice arguments rest on the idea that life begins after birth, and not conception. So in order to decide whether a fetus really does qualify as "living," here's a definition for life: "The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism." (The Free Dictionary) In short, life is the quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms (a pretty reasonable definition). I think we can agree that a fetus has this quality - it is definitely distinguishable from a dead organism. Otherwise, what qualifies a stillborn child as dead, if (s)he was never alive in the first place?
Now, I know that some people say that a fetus isn't alive because it cannot survive outside the womb, and yet, no one bothers to argue that parasites aren't alive. I'm not saying that a fetus has the worth of a parasite, I am only saying that they are equally alive. No one actually defines life to be the ability to survive independently of another organism, outside of the issue of abortion; we still refer to our organs and parasitic creatures as "alive." But as soon as abortion comes up, we come up with all these excuses for denying a fetus' life.

2. The victim of an abortion is innocent. Now, I don't expect to have any debate over this point either, but just in case, I have a definition for that too: Innocent: Not guilty of a crime or other wrong act (M-W)

3. The victim of an abortion is human. By definition (The American Heritage Dictionary of Student Science), a human is a member of the species Homo sapiens; a human being. Now, have you ever heard of a single creature (not a species that is evolving over successive generations) changing from one species to another? No. No one claims that that can happen. So in order to ever become a human, a fetus must already be a human, because no creature can actually change its species.

Now, onto Pro's case:
1. Women's rights. No one gets to argue that the killing of an innocent human is within their rights. That's not an excuse. Can I claim that I need the right to shoot someone in the head in order to support "women's rights?" No. We all have boundaries.
2. A fetus is not a fully functional human being until 24 weeks. It is functional, it is just dependent on its mother for most of its functions. This does not mean it is not alive, as I have addressed under my first point.

In conclusion, because a fetus is an innocent, living human, its life must be legally protected.
Debate Round No. 1


Abortion is the act of inducing miscarriage which is safe for the women having the abortion in a doctors office but if abortion was illegalized than that safety is all thrown out of the window. A women could induce the abortion of the pregnancy in many ways such as coat hangers, bleach, alcohol, and pills; all of which are very dangerous to the women's health and life.

Coat hangers as unpleasant as it sounds it is a method, and most likely the most dangerous if the women missed the fetus and hit an internal organ that would mean the loss of the fetus and internal bleeding and injury or death of the woman.

Bleach, alcohol, and pills: may induce a miscarriage or leave the fetus with life long physical and mental disabilities.

Crime; if these fetuses make it to humanhood they will either stay with a mother who will be in poverty or will be adopted to either a middle class family or will not be adopted and have a much greater chance of going into a life of crime.
In 1973 abortion was made legal and when unborn pregnancies would have been 18 old enough to have a crime committed crime rates started to drop. Crime rates rose from 1960 until 1991 and the 1992 crime rates took a sudden down turn that has still continued


1. Abortion is the killing of an innocent human life

"Life is the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaption to environment through changes that originate internally."
The definition provide is from as was the cons side. The last statement states that life has to be able to grow with its own metabolism and be able to adapt to the environment through changes that ordinate internally. If one was to preform an emergency c section before 24 weeks of pregnancy even the doctors will not help because there is to great a chance the fetus will not live because it does not have one major property of life the ability to adapt.

2. "The case assumes that abortion is killing"

Assuming and stating are two different things abortion is not defined as killin abortion is defined as "the removal of the embryo or fetus to end a pregnancy"


Abortion has kept the crime rates lower and has saved women's lives from the dangers of home abortion.


Here, I will respond to Pro's arguments.

1. Pro brought up the problem of home abortions, and her solution is professional abortions. I do not deny that home abortions might be a current problem (although I would ask Pro how common they are), but I propose a different solution: Don't get pregnant, or go through with the pregnancy. Do not get pregnant and then kill a child; why should the child be blamed for your mistake?

2. Pro hinted at the argument that life for an unwanted child would be worse than no life at all, so I will briefly address this point. Does one person have the right to say to another person, "your life will soon be unbearable, so I'll just save you the misery," and then kill him? No! This baby deserves a chance to live.

3. Pro brought up some evidence that the crime rates dropped 18 years after abortion was made legal. My response to this is that it isn't relevant. Regardless of whether kids in these homes are more likely to commit a crime or not, that still doesn't give us permission to kill them. By that logic, any group of people that has a higher crime rate than average should be killed off! Absolutely not! Every individual is innocent until proven guilty, people are judged on their own merits, and most of those crimes probably didn't deserve death anyway.

4. Pro said that a fetus does not have life because it cannot adapt to the environment through changes that originate internally. My response to this is that this is not a good definition of life. Now, my definition of life is from The Free Dictionary, and it says that life is "The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism." Now, while this definition addresses some functionality commonly associated with life, it does not try to claim that this functionality is necessary for life. Pro's definition says that in order to be alive, an organism must be able to adapt to its environment through changes that originate internally. Before I can respond to this definition, I need to know exactly what Pro means by the word "adapt." I, as a human being, do not "adapt to my environment" in that my physical body changes (you won't see me develop a skin tone better suited for absorbing solar nutrients), so if Pro is referring to physical adaptations, then I, as a human being, am not alive either.

5. Finally, Pro said that "abortion is not defined as killing abortion is defined as "the removal of the embryo or fetus to end a pregnancy." What Pro is missing is that the removal of that fetus or embryo will always kill it. If Pro can come up with a scenario of an abortion that was not fatal to the fetus, then I won't argue that that type of abortion is wrong. The only reason anyone would contest an abortion is because it is fatal to the fetus, so if the fetus can survive the abortion, I won't argue that it should be illegal.

In conclusion, because abortion kills an innocent human, it must be illegal.
Debate Round No. 2


Stuhan18 forfeited this round.


Because Pro was unable to respond to my previous case, I hold that a vote for Con is warranted. Good job, great debate!
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Stuhan18 1 year ago
Sorry I was not able to post a third argument I had been busy all weekend and Friday and Thursday preparing to put on a musical. I'm the set crew. But my general argument was going to be rebuttals stating that 68000 women die each year(this accounts for the whole population which is 19 million home abortions). And legal abortion is a 1 in 100,000 chance in complication less than child birth. I probably would have gained more facts for rebuttals but that was the only one I had time to find. Sorry again
Posted by tracybrown 1 year ago
The opinion of the costs of childbirth are entitled to be an opinion of the individual's law protects us from opinions which imposed on the body are not right

Neither are rights to be made to suit opinions about tge best use of productivity organs such as are womens bodies ..society's view is free ti disagree with the individual's decision
Posted by Ab_M 1 year ago
@tracybrown what you're forgetting is that a) the intruder is not uninvited, and b) he did not purposefully intrude on your space. When a woman is irresponsible, she may end up pregnant, and that cannot be blamed on the unborn child. Women need to go into sex with an understanding of the risks involved. You also have to remember that in order to save the child's life, a woman only needs to carry him for about nine months, and then she can put him up for adoption. That isn't too much to ask of a woman in order to save the child's life.
Posted by tracybrown 1 year ago
I would be anti~abortion if not for those who make it their job to tell others what to do
Frankly its tresspassing to be in someones home or private car and we all have a right to have intruders removed
The body is obviously not public property nor does one need to consider the rights of one who is uninvited
Face it unless its your body you cannot oppose the removal of any undesired growing organism human or otherwise withou suspending rights to ones
own body and what is in it
No votes have been placed for this debate.