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

Should abortion be legalized?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 4/24/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 867 times Debate No: 32866
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




Abortion should be legalized because it would protect the safety of pregnant women, outlawing abortion is discriminatory, and more children will bear children.

Pregnant women can suffer with heart disease, kidney disease, severe hypertension, sickle-cell anemia and severe diabetes, and other illnesses that can be life-threatening, the availability of legal abortion has helped avert serious medical complications that could have resulted from childbirth. With out the ability to abort the baby, the mother and the unborn child could suffer which could result in death for both of them.

Anti-abortion laws discriminate against low-income women, who are driven to dangerous self-induced or back-alley abortions. Whereas wealthier women could simply fly to another country where the abortion could be done without a problem and painlessly. The self- induced or sloppy abortion can go back to the health issues where the mother could end up permanently damaged.

Forty percent of 14-year-old girls will become pregnant before they turn 20. A pregnancy could have the chance of ruining someone's life. Less than half of teen mothers ever graduate from high school and fewer than 2% earn a college degree by age 30. Without a single diploma it would be difficult for anyone to get a job and even harder with someone who has to care for a child.

In conclusion, abortion should be legalized for the health and safety of the mother.


It has been awhile since I have accepted an abortion debate challenge so upon my return to DDO I accept this debate!

My opponent has given 3 arguments in 3 paragraphs, so I will do my best to address each one.

Pregnancy is a health hazard: I have been trained and certified as a Emergency Medical Technician in the past by the state of Va. One of the many things we are trained to take care of is helping a pregnant woman in labor deliver her baby. Do you know how complicated it is to do that? Basically we are trained to just catch it as it comes out. Birth is one of the most natural processes there is, the human race has been doing it for millions of years. Forgive me but I’m going to have to demand you make a much more compelling case to convince me and the rest of the public that a baby/fetus is a disease with horrible life threatening symptoms. The baby must certainly not be thought of as a disease, and the human race could not exist as it is today if it any rightful since be called life-threatening.

Are there complications sometimes in pregnancy? Well yeah. Are there complications in going down some stairs? Well yeah, you could fall and injure your spine or get serious bruises, perhaps even severe life threatening bleeding inside your skull if you fall just right. This does not make walking down the stairs though in any rightful since something to be considered dangerous. Having to go through with a pregnancy does not put your life in danger any more than having to take the stairs does when the elevator is out of order.

Ant-Abortion laws discriminate against poor women: the additional description of ‘low-income’ to who it discriminates against is a joke. I have never herd of an anti-abortion law that targeted you because your were ‘poor’ and left you alone if you were ‘rich’. We on the pro-life side of the issue object to the slaughter of unborn babies whether your income 7.25 per hour or if its 3 million dollars a year. I think you just got carried away with media rhetoric and didn’t really think through your statement so I ask that you at the least concede you only meant the laws would discriminate against ‘women’ and not ‘poor women’.

That said it is an extreme fallacy to say the position ‘it should be illegal to murder children’ is discriminatory. It is anti-discriminatory if anything as the law would stand up for those being treated as lesser beings than others. There would only be a sliver of room to say this law discriminates against women if the same position on protecting children were not extended to men, if while we maintained it should be illegal for a women to kill her own child, its perfectly legal for the man to do so. Do to the unique nature of pregnancy however, the question only comes up about the woman because the child is still located inside of her body.

‘but doesn’t that fact give her the right to do what she wants with it? she’s in charge of her body’ you might and probably will argue. Let me answer that with another question, does my Government have the right to kill me because I exist in there country? I did not choose to be born here and yet this is were I was born. It’s really not that different from that to argue the mom gets to kill whatever she wants as long as it is inside her body. While it is inside her body it is not ‘her body’ its another humans body. A baby human. A defenseless infant human body unaware that the women its umbilical cord is attached to is thinking about having a doctor poor a Saline solution inside of her to burn there little body until it is a black husk ready for removal. Because I do not want that barbaric act to ever be legal again it makes me a sexist? No, the truth is it does not.

Teenage mothers are unlikely to graduate:

While this is unfortunate, the problem is not that the girls are pregnant. The problem is they got pregnant. Between the options of making a cultural movement towards encouraging abstinence again, or creating better adoption facilities to take in the baby alive after its delivery when a pregnant teenager has a child she cant handle raising, and allowing the continued legal practice of murdering baby humans as if they are lesser beings, no different than an animal…….you choose the solution to the problem being to keep up the practice of pouring the Saline solution to burn the baby alive inside the womb.

The whole absurdness of this solution only comes from talking about pregnancy like it is a disease that needs treated. I am afraid this debate will never be able to move forward on this point until my opponent makes at least an effort to show in there every phrase that they understand pregnancy is not a disease when they discuss solutions like abortion to children getting pregnant before they are 20.

All that said, time for a few arguments of my own

Discrimination: as long as your bringing up discrimination, besides the obvious discrimination against children simply because they are still in the womb, there is another discriminatory part about legalized abortion that must be discussed and that is Racism.

Organizations like Planned Parenthood have been using abortion to try and eradicate the African-American population. They make there abortion clinics within walking distance of black communities across the nation. Back in the day of its inception its founder Margret Sanger was more open about her racist genocidal intentions for her organization, while today the organization has tried to keep the racism a forgotten buried secret of there past. Does that mean they are no longer raciest however? No sadly. To this day they actually have been caught accepting donations earmarked for only aborting black babies with glee Funny how African Americans make up only 12% of the countries population, and yet 35% of all the abortions performed are performed on them, Margret Sanger would be so proud of her organization today. Did you know the black population is actually starting to decline? look through the dumpsters of the abortion clinics and it will not be hard to guess why there is a decline.

This is so horrendous that it makes me sick to my stomach. Racial genocide should not be made so legal like this. Even if I were to agree with the principal of it being okay to abort any baby which I do not, I would still be strongly defend that this genocidal madness must STOP.

I thank my opponent for starting this debate, hope it will be good and fun, and I await there response.

Debate Round No. 1


In your last sentence you wrote there when their was the correct term. Clearly your arguments are therefore fallacious.


well so much for a 'good' debate I was hoping for, guess I cant have everything I want though.

the flaw you have pointed out is not what is known as an argument fallacy, its a spelling and grammer error. I amoung many others am prone to make them from time to time. for spelling and grammar critique of my arguments there is a vote set aside just for that when the debate is over. its worth one point. arguments is a seperate vote from spelling and grammar however worth 3 points. and as long as we are talking about the vote and what is worth what, whose sources are better is also a seperate vote worth 2 points, and better conduct is worth 1 point.

I gladlly concead I will unlikely get the spelling and grammar vote, I hardly ever do, however the my arguments themselves have been left uncontested so my opponents arguments must be considered dropped points.

So in arguments please vote for me, even if you are pro-abortion.
In spelling and grammar, by all means vote for my opponent unless you notice plenty from my opponent as well.
In Conduct, because my opponent has pretty much insured at this stage they will post new arguments of some kind in the last round, I consider that a form of brake in conduct. and it its not, it at least is a brake in conduct to give basically no rebuttal in round 2 like this when they clearly are capable of debating as well as they did in round 1.

In sources....I sourced and my opponent did not, there is nothing left to say on that.

So vote con in all things except spelling please if the debate is left as it is now before next round. I hope my opponent though takes it more seriously though before then. I only offered one argument of my own and mostly stuck with rebutting pros line of argument and thought for the debate. Its not expecting a lot of my opponent to just ask of them to defend there own case they created for 2 rounds.
Debate Round No. 2


Ariana_R forfeited this round.


Vote Con.

Even if your Pro-abortion just to show pro they could have debated better.

thank you for your time reading though this debate or your votes.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by martianshark 3 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. Con also made better arguments.
Vote Placed by Mak-zie 3 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, so conduct goes to Con. Pro made very little arguments and did not rebut any of Con's arguments, so Con gets arguments.