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

There is nothing wrong with abortion

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 for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,334 times Debate No: 16846
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)




1. No semantics; use your own common sense to know that this means.
2. No vulgarity; keep it clean


These definitions are simply for structure, and understanding of what this debate is about as a whole. If my opponent feels any of these definitions are abusive, they may offer an alternative definition so long as it fits in the same train of linear thought.
Also, they may offer more definitions as they see necessary.

1. [1] Abortion: "termination of pregnancy"
2. [2] Wrong: "that which is contrary to the principles of justice or law"
3. [3] Nothing: "in no respect; to no degree"

All definitions from

=Round Structure=
Round 1: Acceptance/ Definitions

Round 2: Constructive ideas; After this round, no new arguments may be brought into the debate. Also note that this round is not meant for clash of arguments, but for presentation of each sides' stance.

Round 3-4: Debate and clash; Use you own common sense for this.

Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting this round!

Obs1: The resolution says "There is nothing wrong with abortion" meaning that if I am able to show even one thing to be "wrong" with abortion, I will win this debate.

Obs2: BOP is on I, the Con. However the moment I make an argument, my opponent has the BOP of refutation, if my arguments are not refuted, then I win them,


1. termination of a human fetus is murder

Many pro-choice advocates claim that since the fetus has not yet been born, it is not a human; this is however incredibly untrue. Even at the earliest stage of development, the fetus has it's own unique string of DNA, not it's Mother's; but even more so than that it is human DNA.

Even more so, to say that it is alright to kill the unborn fetus because it is not full developed, is the same as saying it is okay to kill a child or a teenager because they are not fully developed.

2. by aborting a fetus, we destroy limitless potential

3. Many women experience severe health problems after having abortions. [1][2]
Including; 30% Increased risk of breast cancer, Sterility, bladder injury, ectopic pregnancy, hemorrhaging, hepatitis, and many many more.

4. Many women die due to botched abortions, or due to complications with the procedure [1]

5. Many women suffer psychological distress after having an abortion [1]

6. Abortion violates the unborn Child's right to life [3]

From the declaration of independence; "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Also interesting to note, that In this clause the wording, "All me are created equal" means that even if the prior logic that murder is being committed isn't accepted, then it is still wrong (unjust) because the unborn child's rights are still being violated as the declaration claims that they are created equal, not born equal

I have presented 7 very basic arguments, and as needed will further explain and expand them. but at this point in the debate, I am winning 7 times over.



First and for most I accept the burden my opponent has placed on me.

R1 - comparing the fetus to a teenager or a child is impossible mainly because that's what this debate is about a fetus in not viable or developed as a human being. Having DNA does technically make you human however there is more than one criteria you need to fill to be called human like one of them is being born. A fetus has more in common with a tumor the first few weeks after a while it becomes more a parasite than anything else stealing nurtrients from it's host.

R2 - I am not fazed by the potentiality argument it is not proof that abortion is wrong nor has it any weight for it is only theory and does not make abortion wrong.

R3 - This is an appeal to consequence, furthermore it does not make abortion wrong. You have made a poor decision in defining wrong as contrary to justice or law. A women who has a fetus is justified in taking the fetus out of her body since she is capable and knows what the meaning of risk is. Also since the fetus is not capable of making decisions and is not sentient it is not wrong to terminate it.

R4 - This seems like an extenionsn of the third point if the women getting an abortion does die which is exteremly rare but the women decided to end her pregnancy an accepted any risk in doing it does not make abortion wrong claiming that a women might die.

R5 - The effects after an abortion or what might happen after an abortion are not relevant whether an abortion is wrong. You have not related the effects of what a pregnant women experiences to how abortion is wrong.

R6 - you have not made an argument as to how an unborn child is alive; Furthermore, Their is specific criteria that one must meet to be considered alive 1 you must be born 2 you must be able to make think. 3 you must be able 4 you must be able to feel

For the record you only presented 6 arguments and they have all been refuted
Debate Round No. 2


I thank my opponent for their responses!
I'm just going to go right down the arguments

1. My opponent claims that there is one more requirement for some-one to be a human; they have to have been born. However they never warrant why this is necessary. They claim that they are closer to a tumor than a human being, however this is not true; where a person to get a tumor, that tumor would have the same DNA code as them - whereas a fetus has a completely unique DNA code to either the mother or the father.
And a fetus is not a parasite, a parasite in an organism that drains the life out of it's host via unnatural means. Pregnancy is not unnatural, in fact once a women becomes pregnant her body takes that into account and she is not lacking in any of her own necessities.

2. My opponent doesn't refute this argument; thus it is a drop. I have won this debate as of this point.

3. First, My opponent is completely disregarding my argument; the purpose of a legitimate government is to protect it's people; if a woman is injured or could possibly die because of a "medical procedure" that is malpractice, thus unjust.

Secondly, my opponent's defense here is completely and utterly semantic; the fact that he pulls attention to my definition and indicates that where it a wider range definition, it would be wrong.

Third, my opponent claims that since the woman is capable of terminating the pregnancy, it is just to do so; that is the same thing as saying that because I could rob a bank, or kill a kindergarten class it is justified to for me to do so.

Fourth, my opponent claims that since the fetus isn't sentient there's nothing wrong with killing it; this is a multiple causation fallacy. One because we cannot know that the fetus isn't sentient, two because saying it's alright to kill those who aren't capable of making decisions is the same thing as saying it's okay to kill Children, the mentally handicapped, elderly, and sick because they aren't capable of making decisions.

4. Again, allowing such dangerous "medical Practices" is malpractice.

5. There is no warrant here, the woman suffers mental distress; thus it is wrong.

6. I have made plenty of argument about how the unborn child is alive; especially since I have a direct quote from the constitution that states all "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life..." At the moment of conception (i.e. creation) the Child has a right to life, abortion violates this right thus it is wrong.


thank you for your timely response.

R1 - My opponent does not address my argument but sidesteps it by saying what warrant do I have for saying that to be considered human there is more than one criteria to be filled besides having DNA. Note my opponent does not make an argument for being human based solely on having DNA. To be considered human you have to have DNA and be born because if you are not born you are not able to think or be sentient or feel, a fetus can not do any of those things; Furthermore, a baby is much like a parasite you use the word 'unnatural' but a parasite takes nutrients by it's natural means. The baby is much like a parasite even if it is born there are many complications in the postpartum of the pregnancy like "cadriomyopathy" many women die during childbirth more so than if they abort making many of your arguments moot. If the argument is that an abortion might harm the women childbirth might harm the women more. Also women get majorly depressed after having a child so should women stop giving birth because of some complications?

R2 - Technically you didn't make an argument it is not proof that abortion is wrong it's a theory ( if it can so be called that). Their is no warrant for why this is relevant to the debate.

R3 - I have already addressed this argument you do realize that childbirth is technically a "medical procedure." And I pull attention to your definition because it's the parameters we agreed on it isn't a semantical argument it's a practical one I didn't offer a different definition nor did I try to change the meaning of the definition I simply pointed out that you were deviating from your parameters. And you could rob a bank if you think you're justified in robbing a bank if you think it is just that's what we're dealing with individuals not the collective good. Furthermore it's not okay t kill children, mentally handicapped, elderly, or sick because they are sentient they were born and they can think and feel.

R4 - already pointed out how this point is moot.

R5 - Many women suffer mental distress after they have a child is does that make having a child wrong?

R6 - This argument has an implication that children are created by a "Creator" capital C meaning a being/entity meaning my opponent is asserting the existence of a higher order which cannot be proven. My opponents real argument seems to be that we all have unalienable rights (life,liberty, and property), but we are not operating solely in America many children are aborted elsewhere do only fetus's that are aborted in America have this right? Your arguments is a geographical one not a moral one or logical one so it should be dismissed.
Debate Round No. 3


1. My opponent completely disregards my attack on their case, and yet never gives a warrant why the person be born before being considered a person. Also my opponent claims that babies are parasites(Which isn't true, it's a commensual symbiotic relationship) , and that if more women had abortions, we wouldn't have to worry about many of the problems we have. I instead contend we would have to worry about extinction, which is bad by the way

2. My opponent offers no refutation here, and in fact that way they've responded shows that my argument is true.

3. it is indeed a semantic argument because you arguing this point so rigidly; while of course we have to take into play the basic definition provided, there is no reason why an argument should be based solely on a definition.
The point of defining terms and such in the first place, is for clarity and understanding; not to make arguments based on technicalities.

4. I have shown how it is not moot, please vote base on the debate.

5. The point is in magnitude; when having a child only 10-15% of women suffer post-pardum depression[1] and these symptoms are temporary and caused by hormonal imbalances. whereas after having an abortion, a good majority of women suffer long-term effects of guilt, depression, and anxiety. [2]

6. My opponent is not attacking my argument, but what they want my argument to be; my point still stands that because the declaration of independence states it is immoral, it makes it unjust. This is not a debate about , however if my opponent wishes we can have a debate such as that later; however at this point in time I ask for a Con Vote, I have shown that there are things wrong with abortion!

Vote Con Please!


headphonegut forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by headphonegut 5 years ago
Can you send me the debates via pm or post them here
Posted by Danielle 5 years ago
You headphonegut. I noticed that you have vote-bombed me on several debates - especially rap battles. You wanna explain why you are so obsessed with me or what? Should I go around doing the same to you? Let me know and I'll get started asap. Thanks.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
To forfeit.
Um, no.
Posted by headphonegut 5 years ago
No reason it would just be very funny
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
What? Why?
Posted by headphonegut 5 years ago
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
I'll post in a couple of hours!
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
Oh wait no, I'm fine @-@.
Contradiction, you scared me for a moment.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
Apparently we're both being devils' advocates. >->
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
Oh crap I didn't mean to be Con >->
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Note an appeal to consequence is an argument that a proposition is true because a consequence is desired, it is not an appeal to consequence to argue something is wrong because of the consequences. This was close until the last round, BangBang had the BoP and weighing that I would have balanced it, the forfeit seals it though 3:2 BangBang