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

Should abortion be made illegal?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 9/9/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,194 times Debate No: 79575
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)




Abortion violates the constitution, the constitution clearly states that murder is illegal in every way. When you abort a child you are murdering it before that child can experience life. The constitution also states that there should be no cruel and unusual punishment. You are cruelly punishing this baby for crimes it never committed. Also, when you abort a child you could be taking away the country's potential. Now what I mean by that is simply this, every kid has the potential or a dream to be something great, when you abort a child you are taking away that child's dreams. Now I'm not saying that every kid you're aborting is going to grow up and cure cancer or solve world hunger, but who said there was never a chance. For these reasons I politely ask for a Pro vote in today's ballot.


Alright, so here we are debating over the subject: Should abortion be made illegal.

Let us define abortion eh?

Abortion - the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.

I'll assume illegal is common enough that it doesn't need a definition.

My opponent seems to make three main points in his statement above.

Firstly, that abortion violates the constitution as abortion is murder and the constitution declares murder illegal in every way

Secondly, that abortion violates the constitution as abortion is a form of cruel and unusual punishment on the aborted child.

Third, the commonly used "the child could grow up to cure cancer" argument.

Now to deal with those, as a commenter pointed out and as i would have myself, the constitution does not actually mention the illegality of murder. That's a law sure, but not every law is contained in the US constitution. So the basic premise of the first point falls flat. I'm sure it'll come back later though and I'll have to explain the difference between murder and abortion, but I'll give pro the honor of telling me I misinterpreted his point and am using semantics to try and confuse things.

The second point, I think this is farily obvious but the fetus isn't being punished in an abortion. That is not the intent. No one has an abortion because they're mad at their unborn child and wants to torture them. You're sort of stretching the definitions of things to suit you, so let us define punishment!

Punishment - The infliction or imposition of penalty as retribution for an offense.

People have abortions for a variety of reasons, but none are for a retribution against the fetus. That's just a tad bit silly to imagine.

Finally, the 'might cure cancer' argument. If you want a mathematical counter, I can say 'or they might become Hitler' but I'll simply say to make something illegal simply because of the tiny probability of a certain consequence is ridiculous. It's trying to control minutia that truly are uncontrolable.

That aborted fetus will NOT grow up to cure cancer, I can absolutely guarantee it, because I know it'll grow up to be dead. It was aborted. That is what it is.
There are billions of others, if you look at many of our great scientific rockstars, I'll bet you never realized that there are always a handful of other people independently reaching similar conclusions to them at around the same time. What you will do is not predestined before birth so much as it is grown through life. So aborting a fetus is not going to rob the world of the cure to cancer anymore than it will prevent the next Hitler.

BOP was not determined, but generally I assume it to lie on pro.
I'll still pitch in the mother's right to her own body however, as she should fully well have the option of removing a parasitic being from her body before it causes 9 months of medical and financial havoc and 18 years + of legal and financial trouble if she so desires.

Thank you to my opponent for this debate and good luck to all.
Debate Round No. 1


Well obviously my opponent is not aware that the constitution does state "Murder is always, under no circumstances, a crime." Once again when you abort a child, a child who has a heart, two arms and 2 legs, hair, organs, some kidneys, long story short it's still a human who hasn't and won't get the chance to live. If my opponent would like to argue about what the U.S. constitution says, doesn't it say that every human has the right to 'Live, love, and the pursuit of happiness'? Well if you decide to kill that human before it has the opportunity to enjoy and pursue those three things, wouldn't that be yet another constitution violation? Wow, you never looked at it that way did you? Obviously punishing the mother in this situation would be insane. But if we make abortion illegal mothers won't have the chance to ask for an abortion. When you make a mistake, you have to face the consequences, if you had sex and became pregnant unintentionally then that is her mistake and she must deal with the consequences, you can't just kill the child because the mother doesn't want him/her. So in conclusion if you look at my points and facts you will see that you should definitely vote pro in today's ballot. Thank you


So I perused through my digital copy of the Constitution, and I still found no references to murder, so if you'd like to give me a section, or line or amendment that'd be rather helpful. Also I'd like to point out that the quote you made states that murder is never a crime. "Always, under no circumstances" as you put it.

The constitution also never declares rights to live, love and pursuit of happiness.
In fact NO US document expresses rights to live and love.
The Declaration of Independance however does say all men have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
I think you need go back and reread the documents you're trying to quote. Especially before turning snarky on me.

Anyways, so that takes out the constitutional violation reason for your new argument.

You can argue a right to life, and sure, give it that. But it doesn't have a right to override the rights of the mother.
So take it out, and see how long it lasts. If it dies, then it wasn't meant to be. You can't really have a right to something that you're not physically capable of.

When you make a mistake you do have to face the consequences, yes, but there is no rule against allieviating suffering from that mistake. Prisoners get granted early leave for good behavior, people who cause accidents still get to go to the hospital and people who get pregnant can have abortions.

I'd like to thank anyone reading and I continue to wish my opponent the best.
Debate Round No. 2


Is my opponent not aware that a mother is 77% more likely to be injured or killed during an abortion than they would having childbirth? The CDC has stated in 2015, there are 17 known side effects that can happen during an abortion, one of them being death, and one being an infection in the uterus to where the mother might not be able to have children again. Most abortions are from teenage mothers who made the mistake of having sex and became pregnant, my point being that if that infection from the uterus does affect some teens, say they want to have children when they are older, they can't because she decided she wanted to kill her mistake she made when she was younger. Obviously since this debate has started my opponent has had more evidence than me, which I congratulate you on, but who has more common sense? We obviously have to see that abortion is wrong in the eyes of my, it is also right in the eyes of many. So we must see that not only the fact are you taking a human beings life, you could be hurting the mother. Good luck to you.


How much more likely injury to the mother is, is irrelevant in deciding whether the procedure should be legal.
Risky procedures exist, and without base numbers of injury rates, saying a 77% increase doesn't mean much.

I mean, I'm easily at least 98% more likely to get mauled by a wild grizzly if I walk near the woods than just staying around the city. That doesn't really give you an idea of how frequently the attack happens though.

The bit about the side effects is also irrelevant. Cialis can cause swelling of tongue as a listed side effect. Does that mean the elderly don't deserve boners?

I guess I should thank you for acknowledging my efforts. So thank you.

I'd like to say however as a final closing remark. I believe I refuted any attempts to establish reason for making abortion illegal. As such I'd like to say thanks to everyone involved.

Be nice to people.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by finley5 1 year ago
No abortion shouldn't be made illegal. Even if a person doesn't personally agree and wouldn't do it themselves it doesn't mean others shouldn't be able to . Even though it doesn't happen often pregnancy does occur in cases of rape and incest. Noone should be forced to carry a baby that they might hate. Also in cases of incest the child could also have some deformities. There are other medical cases where it might be better to terminate a pregnancy to save a child from a lifetime of medical problems or where it might not survive after birth. This would save the parents from emotional trauma of giving birth to a child that won't survive. I don't feel that abortion should be used as a form of birth control but that would be hard to monitor or control. The counseling that happens prior to an abortion should help those consider this as an option. It is better to be safe than to go back to unsafe illegal abortions where women die to make that choice.
Posted by MizzEnigma 1 year ago
A woman has a right to control what is inside her. The moment it is born, it is a person and has years ahead of them. As long as it is inside her, she has the right to govern it. A fetus is a fetus and near a parasite. No one is fighting for the right to murder the unborn, but the right for a mother to decide whether she keeps a fetus that could potentially make her life worse or subject that fetus to years of not being adopted or possible neglect in foster care. A mother has that right, especially in consideration of what will happen to her body. A fetus is not a person as blue is not green. Fetus and a person are human, blue and green are colors. There is a separation of what they are. The potential is not a life. Both are separate. A person has years ahead. A person is after birth.

So, yes, the law to protect a woman's privacy - what she does with her body, was made as it is her right. You are not in this woman's position, so you don't have the right to make the decisions for her, especially concerning something that you won't even care for after it is born. If you did, you'd be more worried about the children in adoption care to ensure the child will be fine if it is an option. To ensuring contraceptives will always work. To helping the neglected children in foster care. But you don't. Instead, you want to subject other "potential lives" to these experiences, because you feel it's wrong for a woman to control her body.

And yes, a seven year old boy will receive attention. He is a human, seven years after birth. Poor kid.
Posted by Oneseedykiwi 1 year ago
MegaAfroMan- First off I commend you on your win. I posted my comment regarding your criticism of the Pro's use of words, and while I thought at the time that you were overlooking the obvious implications of the Pro's words, I now realize the importance of the proper word choice and otherwise. I posted my comment at the first round. Seeing the progressively weakening argument of the Pro has caused my support to change to you and your superior presentation of ideas and evidence, though in regard to your standing on the topic, I thoroughly oppose. You claim that the topic "isn't an ethical one, it is a legal one". Well I say that the two go hand in hand. The modern morality of our society is what is used as the basis for establishing laws which are deemed righteous and necessary. Without proper ethics, we would not be capable of constructing truly morally sound laws, which is easily seen in our culture today. You claim that the mother has " rights" as the mother to kill her child, because the baby is reliant on her body. You could even say that the baby/fetus is a part of her body. However, the potential for life is blatantly apparent. Unless there is a predictable medical issue with the birthing process or the like, that fetus definitely has the potential to be a living human being capable of life. The emotional concerns of the mother for her own feelings should be no factor into the taking of potential life for the child. When a 7 year old dies, what do people think? "He had so many years of him", would be among the thoughts. The same should be said for these millions of fetus', who are killed every year. Where did their life go? It was taken, because of the feelings of DISDAIN and DISREGARD from the mother, allowed by a law created out of CONCERN for the mother's FEELINGS, which was allowed by the American populace on a basis of woman's "rights" to choose death or life. Some things need control. and a law based on moral decisions can be argued with such. OOSpace
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: AdithyaShark// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con had stronger arguments. Pro had the burden of proof to demonstrate that abortion should be illegal. Pro doesn't successfully establish that abortion violates the Constitution. It's unclear how the right to life applies to unborn humans. Therefore, as Pro fails to fulfill the whole burden of proof, I vote Con on arguments. As always, I'm happy to clarify this RFD.

[*Reason for non-removal*] While this voter probably should have spent some time directly analyzing Con's argument and explaining how he "had stronger arguments", establishing that it was Pro's BoP and explaining how he failed to meet it is sufficient reasoning.
Posted by MizzEnigma 1 year ago

But it is not a person. That is the defining factor. Once it is a person - an infant - then it is murder. However, before it's birth, it is not. Therefore, it is not murder. Even courts do not see it as a person, because it is not. Roe v Wade is the defining factor: the fetus is not a person.

Person: a human being regarded as an individual. [Oxford]

individual: a single organism capable of independent existence. []

A fetus is not independent - it is dependent on the mother in the womb. A person in the making - sure, but as long as it is a fetus, it is not a person.

Murder: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought . []

Conclusion: It is not murder since the fetus is not a person.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
You have to remove the need for abortion, not place barriers in the way of health choices.
Posted by CodyNiskanen 1 year ago
A fetus is a person in the making. So, it is murder. Also, they sell the body parts of the fetus.
Posted by MizzEnigma 1 year ago

A fetus is not a person.

Murder against a person is illegal.

Therefore, it is not murder.
Posted by CodyNiskanen 1 year ago
By refusing to allow pregnant women to kill their babies
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
how would enforce that?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by AdithyaShark 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had stronger arguments. Pro had the burden of proof to demonstrate that abortion should be illegal. Pro doesn't successfully establish that abortion violates the Constitution. It's unclear how the right to life applies to unborn humans. Therefore, as Pro fails to fulfill the whole burden of proof, I vote Con on arguments. Addendum - As, apparently, my RFD seemed a bit insufficient in my analysis, I will expand on it. The primary problem with Pro's argument is that it's a straw-man of Con's position, claiming that killing the fetus is an act of retribution. Con quickly dismisses this idea, and the "might cure cancer" is easily turned by Con. Furthermore, I just don't buy Pro's argument that the Constitution prohibits abortion. Pro merely says Constitution prohibits murder, but misses the crucial link that has to be proven -- that abortion is murder. It isn't expanded on. Ergo, I vote Con. As always, I'm happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by William.Burnham 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Welcome to Cathers. I'm giving all points to Con today. Pro, read this and understand where you erred today. Conduct: Pro's language was demeaning at points, while con remained respectful. Grammar: Con made better use of sentence structure and spelling. Pro should break his statements into paragraphs, and double check his grammar before posting. Arguments: Con did a much better job defining key words and topics, and used sound logic. Sources: Pro needs to spend a minute or two doing research. There were plenty of resources available to help his argument, the pro-life movement is huge and has numerous websites with published scientific studies that he could have made good use of. Heck, even a tear jerking youtube video could have been nice. Pro, spend more time preparing and writing your statements next time. Use this debate as practice to get better and don't give up. If you can write and argue well, there's nothing in this world you can't do.