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

Should abortion be limited?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,129 times Debate No: 44721
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)




This debate concerned whether or not abortions should be moderated depending on time, case, and past abortions.
1) make a realistic argument
2) be respectful
Do you accept the challenge?


Thank you for starting this debate. I am going to assume that this post will just be on my acceptance of this debate. I look forward to debating with you.
Debate Round No. 1


Okay, I'm glad to be in a debate with you.

I believe that abortion should be limited, because in many cases, it's unnecessary and just convenient for the mother.
I say this because: many of the times the mother is just using it because she doesn't want a kid, or because she's a teenager. I think this is wrong because, if you don't want a kid you can always put it up for adoption, and if you feel you're to irresponsible to have a kid, then that's just too bad. You don't have the right to kill your baby just because it's an obstacle. If you were old enough to consent to sex, you're old enough to care for a child. And, as I stated before, there's always adoption.

Speaking of consenting, if you were raped then I believe you have every right to an abortion, because something that's not your fault is not your responsibility. This is one of the cases when I'm for abortion.

So, in short, I believe the only cases when abortion should be considered 100% acceptable are: rape, incest, threat to mother's health.

I believe that abortion should limited in cases of teenage or unwanted pregnancy, especially the ladies who sleep around and use abortion as a contraceptive.

I'm impartial on children being born into poverty, because : I'm sure that condoms or birth control pills would have costed less than an abortion. And again, there's always adoption and very often there are safe havens available where you can drop your baby off, no questions asked.


Thank you for your timely reply.
To start off, I would like to analyze your first point.

"I think this is wrong because, if you don't want a kid you can always put it up for adoption, and if you feel you're to irresponsible to have a kid, then that's just too bad. You don't have the right to kill your baby just because it's an obstacle. If you were old enough to consent to sex, you're old enough to care for a child. And, as I stated before, there's always adoption."

First of all, adoption is not the best option. In 2011, 11 percent of the children (over 26,000) exiting foster care aged out of the system. Research has shown that teens aging out of the system are highly likely as adults to experience homelessness, poor health, unemployment, incarceration, and other poor outcomes. [1] This has a negative effect on the child, as adoption is not always the best outcome. There are some terrifying cases, but since they may be viewed as isolated cases, I will not present them unless asked by my opponent.

Secondly, the Supreme Court decision in Roe V. Wade made it possible for a woman to have an abortion. Before the supreme court decision, many women were performing illegal abortions all because they could not have a legal one. Studies show that prior to Roe V. Wade they were many unwanted pregnancies in America. According to The New York Daily News article entitled "Do People agree with Abortion" a large amount of people, 89%, agree that the government should not put limits on abortions. When abortions were illegal, number of deaths was 8 times greater than death rate from legal abortions. [2] This is a staggering amount that was unnecessary. Limiting abortions could have the same effect, as women would need to find another way to abort the baby if doctors would be unable to do it for them. My opponents argument was women who would be in danger could have an abortion. However, having the mother abort the baby herself would also put the mother in great danger. Subsequently, this negates my opponents point, as limiting abortions could put women at an even greater risk.

"You don't have the right to kill your baby just because it's an obstacle."

I would like to negate the point that you are calling it a baby. According to the Medical Dictionary, a fetus is the developing young in the uterus, specifically the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, in humans from nine weeks after fertilization until birth. A baby is an infant. Taking it into account that it is a fetus and not a baby, it is found that a fetus does not feel consciousness because it does not have any high brain activity or self-awareness. Even the presence of a heartbeat and the presence of primitive neural activity does not imply that the embryo is significantly conscious. [3] What is needed to define something as a baby is a developed nervous system with higher brain activity. For this reason, it should not matter for what reasons or why the mother chooses to get the fetus aborted, as it does not matter since it is just generally a sperm and an egg.

In addition, the woman decides to have the baby. The choice and right to have a possibility to bring a child in this world should be the same right to abort it. The government should have no right into saying who can have an abortion and under what circumstances. Since it is the persons own body, they should do whatever they feel is right. Adoption is an option, and pregnant women should be educated on different futures besides just abortion. However, women have the right to have a choice, no matter the reason or the circumstances that led them to become pregnant. All I would say to a person who believe in pro- life is you do not have an abortion. However, your decision should not effect others. Since I am not in that situation, I should not have the right to say what I would do or what we shouldn't do on personal preference. The only people who understand are at that point, and they have the right to choose for themselves.

Debate Round No. 2


kkloviee forfeited this round.


Carry down all arguments. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TH3Antag0nist 3 years ago
Hey could you guys vote on some of my debates, I have three ties.
Posted by go4broke 3 years ago
You start with the acknowledged right to abort anytime, anyway THEN you discuss ways to limit access to procure a safe abortion. huh?
Posted by go4broke 3 years ago
Virginia resident Tammy Skinner, 22, destitute single mother of 3 and pregnant with a 4th would-be child shot herself in the stomach the day she is having labor pains.

She survived but the 9 month old fetus died.

No Crime

Females in this country and many other countries have the acknowledged right to abort anytime, anyway.
Posted by go4broke 3 years ago
The question itself is not coherent.

"Should there be restrictions/limits on access to doctors?" is the correct question.
Posted by go4broke 3 years ago
The discussion is out of context.

Females in many countries including ours have the fundamental acknowledged right to self-abort or procure an abortion anytime of her pregnancy and any method (see Tammy Skinner) evidenced by the fact that no statute and no "pro-life" politician in the land seeks to punish the female for any abortion.

Roe was all about allowing professional help, allowing doctors. The female prior to Roe always had the right to self abort.

So when we talk about any limits or restrictions on any abortions we are talking about medical help.
Posted by paigeb 3 years ago
kkloviee: I took the side that there should be no limits and everyone should have the right. However, I do realize I could of taken the pro- life side and not argue for abortions at all. I hope the side I have taken was what you were assuming, since I could have taken the question many ways. If you have any concerns or any other comments, let me know!
Posted by kkloviee 3 years ago
Holliekat; I said limited, not illegal. Sorry if it was unclear, I meant that the number of abortions a woman has had, how many weeks along, and the case of which pregnancy occurred should be monitored and should play a large part in whether or not to have an abortion.
Posted by Holliekat 3 years ago
I realize that I just wanted to know if I could debate if I was only against 2 of the 3 things she mentioned.
Posted by MasterDebater2 3 years ago
Holliekat, all that info is inter-debate related
Posted by Holliekat 3 years ago
I have another question. I feel that abortions should not be limited based on how many or the reason for having the abortion, but I believe they should be illegal after the fetus reaches viability. So I am for it being moderated based on how far along the pregnancy is but not in the case of reason and amount of abortions.
Can I still debate?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TH3Antag0nist 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a good start, but Con ultimately did better.