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

Should elective abortion be legal?

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/3/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 294 times Debate No: 93314
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




Con means my answer is no. Pro means my opponent's answer is yes. My opponent will make the first argument.


Didn't realize the 500 character limit. Voters beware

The Parasite Argument

parasite: an organism that lives on another being and consumes the hosts nutrients

By definition, a baby is a parasite.

It cannot be said that, for any reason, a person should be forced to host a parasite on their body. In the case of babies, the only method of removing the parasite is abortion. Disallowing abortion forces the parasite to remain on the host, which we've determined is unethical.

Thus, abortion should be legal.
Debate Round No. 1


A baby is a human being, not a parasite. That is why elective abortion should not be legal. In most abortions, a baby is torn to pieces for the mother's selfish convenience. Give me one good reason why that should be legal. If a woman does not want a baby, she needs to use contraception.


The opponent arbitrarily ignores the definition of parasite, instead making the unfounded (and incorrect) assertion that "a baby ... is not a parasite."

Unless the opponent can demonstrate that it is ethical to force a person to harbor a parasite and the difficulties that entails, his point fails.

Argument 2:

Abortion should be legal in the case that the mother and baby will die without it. Clearly, one death is better than two and abortion is necessary to reduce the death toll.
Debate Round No. 2


I have ignored nothing. Unborn babies are not parasites. and that has nothing to do with whether abortion should be legal or not. It should not be legal to cut babies to pieces.


The opponent again ignores my definition, choosing not to provide counterevidence. Argument one flows to me.

The opponent doesn't even refer to my second argument, which can only count as a dropped argument which should also be flowed to me.


-Opponent doesn't present alternative definitions.
-Makes unbased assertions.

The Case Where No Abortion Will Cause Mother and Child Death

-Opponent flat out doesn't address this argument.

The opponent makes an ethical claim but provides no evidence for it.
Debate Round No. 3


You again have refused to READ what I wrote. This debate is about whether elective abortion should be legal, NOT whether the UNBORN CHILD is ALLEGEDLY a parasite. STAY ON TOPIC.


The opponent fails to see the connection between baby parasitism and elective abortion.

Again, a baby is, by definition, a parasite. A person should not be forced to harbor a parasite on their body. The only way to remove this parasite is through elective abortion. Illegalizing elective abortion forces a person to harbor a parasite on their body. Therefore, elective abortion should be legal.

Finally, the opponent again drops argument #2, meaning it flows Pro. I've won the debate on arg 2 alone.
Debate Round No. 4


This debate is about whether elective abortion should be legal, not whether the baby is ALLEGEDLY a parasite. Stay on topic. Elective abortion should not be legal because it kills a living baby. Unborn babies are torn to pieces all for the mother's selfish convenience.


Opponent again drops Argument 2 and fails to adequately address Argument 1.

The vote is clearly for Pro here, since the opponent failed to meet the minimum Con requirement of rebutting the opponent's arguments.

Because of Arg 1 (parasitism) and Arg 2 (special cases), elective abortion should be legal. Regardless of your personal feelings, it is clear the opponent failed to support her/his side here.

Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 months ago
>Reported vote: SchinkBR// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro never provided sources for his definitions thus it is an opinion, not a definition. Therefore con is justified to refute the argument by simply saying that it is a human, not a parasite. Simple science tells you this is true, but no source was provided by con. Given the flawed logic of pro, I give argument 1 to con. Con simply refutes Pro's second argument by pointing out that the debate is about elective abortions, which s clear in the title of this debate. Thus, the debate about medically necessary abortions is not relevant. Point to Con. I'll give the point for conduct to Con as well because they repeatedly try to bring pro back into the fold for a fighting chance. Really though this debate was disappointing though. Neither side acted very professionally and neither provided sources.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to assess specific arguments made by both debaters and not merely state that one side clarified a definition while the other didn't. Flawed logic can inform a point allocaiton, but it cannot be the sole reason for it. The same is true of just dismissing an argument from one side without assessing it first, which the voter appears to do by stating that it was refuted. (2) Conduct is insufficiently explained. The voter is required to give some reason why one side either personally attacked the other or forfeited a round, and not merely provide their own justification based on who tried the hardest to keep the debate on track.
Posted by whiteflame 3 months ago
>Reported vote: Edlvsjd// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Although I would never consider a baby to be a parasite, given the character allotment pro makes two arguments that weren't sufficiently addressed, while con made the ethical argument, which has little to do with legality. A lot of things are legal that aren't ethical. Conduct also to pro for not returning any all caps statements.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter never specifically assesses any points made by either side, keeping much of the analysis vague and failing to directly establish the strength or weakness of any given point outside of his own worldview. (2) Conduct is insufficiently explained. The usage of all caps is not automatically a conduct violation, and the voter has to establish why it should be seen that way.
Posted by whiteflame 3 months ago
>Reported vote: migmag// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: 95% of LGBT vote Democrat, why did you take the Republican side of this argument Sitar?

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD. The voter's personal views on which side various political groups take on this question is not sufficient reason for awarding points.
Posted by Cobalt 3 months ago
I way didn't realize the 500 character restriction. Would you be ok with (both sides) using google docs to contain the arguments. A good book couldn't even conceive a baby in 500 characters.
Posted by Texas14 3 months ago
I'd consider accepting if I can have a caveat for late term abortion.
Posted by lord_megatron 3 months ago
*ending a potential life
Posted by lord_megatron 3 months ago
I find it funny that people are against abortion as it is ending a life, yet would eat chicken eggs and still call themselves 100 percent vegetarian
Posted by 3 months ago
I'll accept as long as you're not intending to make religious arguments, I just had an abortion debate with someone who exclusively talked about religion, incoherently, and I wouldn't like to repeat it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BackCommander 1 month ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Pro started off by stating that a baby fits the definition of a parasite and therefore outlawing abortions is forcing a person to host a parasite. Con then states that a baby is not a parasite, that it is a human, and spends the rest of the debate simply repeating this. Con fails to point out how a baby is in any way not a parasite. Pro eventually adds to their argument that abortion should be acceptable if either the mother or child are in danger of dying, but this doesn't fit as the argument is for elective abortions and not ones in case of medical emergencies. Pro's argument stands throughout the entire debate without Con ever countering it, and Con's argument serves as an appeal to emotion without any real basis. Convincing argument vote goes to Pro.