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

This house supports abortion

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2017 Category: Health
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 575 times Debate No: 105700
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




First I want to establish that I will be focusing on the principle of abortion and thoroughly believe that the time when you can actually get an abortion should be decided by medical professionals and the women involved.

You will hear some typical arguments from me, however I will involve some new 'out there' arguments and will put deep analysis into already well established ones as well.

My first argument will be centered around the profound affect that a pregnancy can have on a woman's life and how this choice needs to be one of the people directly involved and anything other than that is imposing tough consequences on the woman herself and those loved ones. In this section I will look at the economical, societal and individual well-being that is effected through this incredibly important decision. Through this people who are pro life or pro choice can have their own individual choice.

My second argument is philosophical and centered around what makes a human, a person. This is key to debunking the abortion is immoral stance taken by pro life supporters and most likely my opposition's stance. The argument is 'It is wrong to kill an innocent human being. A human foetus is an innocent human being. Therefore it is wrong to kill a human foetus.' My second argument targets the second statement in the pro life argument and puts forward a different view than what you have probably heard before.

Through this piece I wish to make some nuanced arguments and take a different approach than you might have heard before.


Hey, sounds interesting. Thanks for debating me, as I am not familiar with this format. Today I will most likely be presenting a fairly standard argument for why most reasonable pro-lifers disagree with abortion. While religion is important to me in this debate, I will leave it out as I know it is not a viable point for everyone. I am very interested in your second argument, and thus, will present the argument this is meant to rebut first.

My first point will be about how it is not right, morally, to kill a fetus at any stage of fetal development. I will also be examining ideas relating to morality, such as the individuality of the fetus, putting your own rights above others and the abortion industry as a whole, which is completely immoral.

My second point will be centered around the idea that there are much better substitutes than abortion. I will be examining alternatives such as adoption, as well as looking into the psychological stress and harm abortion can cause the recipient (the mother), as well as the doctor.

While your arguments sound very interesting, I would like to question your first paragraph. Do you mean that different fetus' can be aborted at different times based on individual case, or that it doesn't really matter? I was also wondering who ultimately makes the decision of when the abortion takes place, the women or the doctor? Thanks.
Debate Round No. 1


Before I get into my substantive I would like to directly reply to your closing statement. I only brought up the first part because it is a common problem pro life supporters have with pro abortion arguments trying to demonstrate that this side of the argument doesn't have sound knowledge on what stage during a pregnancy abortion becomes immoral if at all. I just wanted to ensure this debate focused more on ethics and arguments over specifics. I feel I worded my opening statement poorly and has caused some confusion. I didn't mean that individual cases have separate consequences/requirements only that the woman involved should be able at any time in the pregnancy to get an abortion with the advisory of a medical professional (I only include them here for circumstances where the woman's health might be at risk) with it still being a morally just thing to do.

I hope that made some sense, cleared up any confusion, and reinforced my stance on the issue.

The profound affect that abortion/not getting an abortion has on a woman's life.
I first want to outline what this point is, which is that it is a look at some consequences if some women cannot get abortions. Now of course all these will not apply to all women and of course people who want children take on these things voluntarily but think about someone who doesn't want to take on these extra challenges or someone who cannot afford it.
A child is a significant investment on behalf of the parents and therefore it is immoral to force women who do not want a child to take on that heavy burden. This could seriously impact the mother's standard of living which is significant because if someone feels they cannot financially support the child, themselves and potentially their significant other how is that moral by having the child knowing the standard of living is low.

It's not just the outset costs either. Becoming a mother requires a lot of time off work so even if you have a steady job before the pregnancy and you take maternity leave or maybe longer (leaving your job for an amount of time when the child is born.) this can still affect you. There are many decisions that go into the hiring of a worker and experience is one of them. A woman took a year off work because of her child and then goes for a job against another candidate who haven't missed a year and therefore has more experience. The employers may look at the experience of the two and have it be a deciding factor in the hiring of the employee. This point is to illustrate that there is a lot of factors that a potential mother has to consider and if she is worried that this may stop her career progression at an important time in her working life surely she should be able to prioritise herself and her well being over interests over the child.

Next there is the point about unsafe/unequipped parents. This points out that not all people should be parents, wither it be because of addictions, personality, lifestyle. If the potential parent feels they are not going to be a good parent for this child then why is it immoral to make sure they aren't the parent to this child. If someone offers you a microphone and you turn it down, is it immoral (for the perspective of the parents) to take that microphone away?

Some pre-rebuttal in the form as a point is that also the potential parent may not be okay with giving their child away. Now the opposition is trying to claim alternatives as a mutually exclusive benefit that only works for their world however under our house these alternatives are still available. This is after all a choice. I am not advocating for all pregnancies to be aborted by order of the government. If the parents want to have the child and give it away for adoption that is fine, however if the mother thinks she will find it emotionally stressful and would rather an abortion she should be free to do just that.

What did I hope to achieve with this point? I wanted to show that there are consequences that a woman must think about before this monumental decision and no person wants an abortion for no reason. A lot of thought goes into these decisions and no one is making these women choose to abort. Having a child isn't right for everyone and by taking this option to prioritise the potential parent over the child you can ruin lives of the parents and the the children.

What makes humans different? What makes a human, a person? Now stick with me for this one because it is the most controversial part of this debate and involves philosophy. So as I mentioned in my introduction the argument I will be disputing is 'It is wrong to kill an innocent human being. A human foetus is an innocent human being. Therefore it is wrong to kill a human foetus.'. For this argument to work it relies on the principal that a foetus is a human. So lets look at that wording. What makes something human? Peter Singer argues 'To describe a being as 'human' is to use a term that straddles two distinct notions: membership of the species Homo sapiens, and being a person'. This would mean that for us to consider killing the foetus it would need to fulfill both categories. So now lets shift the question to what does it mean to be a person? What makes humans different from other animals. Peter Singer claims that it is 'a rational or self-conscious being' and no one could possibly argue that a foetus is either.
Another way to define something is human is that they have the ability to see themselves in the future. To have dreams and ambitions is seen as something exclusively human and again it cannot be argued that a foetus posses this ability.

This argument seeks to define what a human is and once we have a definition it can fuel further discussion over the ethics of abortions. If my definition and analysis stands then we can conclude that it is moral to have an abortion as the foetus' do not fulfill the requirements to be considered a human.

Finally I'll touch on some pre-emptive rebuttal. The opposition wishes to use the fact that abortions cause emotional stress to mothers and doctors. I have two responses to this. First the doctors performing these abortions have chosen this as their profession and are therefore giving their consent to have this 'stress'. Secondly, the opposition claim that getting an abortion is bad for the mother because of emotional stress, again this is something she will consent to and provides no reason why abortion shouldn't be allowed. All this shows is the desires of the opposition to have a government that takes away the meaning of consent. If someone consents to something then the negatives that comes with it needs to be understood. Women who undertake an abortion have full consent (free from coercion, has all the information, in the right mindset) If all these categories are met consent needs to be respected which is why pro-choice is important. Pro choice allows women who wish to either keep the child or not to have consent and full autonomy in their actions.

In conclusion, all the opposition wants to do is take away choice because they believe the foetus is a person. In my points today I have pointed out how it is detrimental to take away that crucial choice and how consent negates any detriments that my opposition may cite. I also outlined how because I am supporting choice the benefits my opponent is trying to claim are not mutually exclusive and finally I brought up important analysis about what makes a human, a person which doesn't apply to foetus' under Peter Singer's theory.

I know my writing can be a little all over the place so I hope most of it made sense. I now invite my opponent to make his substantive and I hope he takes into account my rebuttal and my own substantive into his arguments.


Before I begin, I would like to talk about your first point (as I address your second point in my response). There is no point in spending too much time on this, as this point depends almost entirely on your second point, so i'll make it brief. Even though you showed no evidence for your statistics on parents giving their children away into abortion, i'll go with your point anyway. I believe that the birth parent should under no circumstances be able to put her rights above her child's, even if this means the parent has to go through things such as depression. I won't bother responding to the rest of this point, as I am pretty sure it is entirely based on who can win the second point (please correct me if I am wrong).

You argued that the fetus is not a person. I don't agree with this, as I think the fetus is actually a human.

While you use a very philosophical argument, I would like to use science, and then explain why your argument is not as credible.

It is impossible to deny that human life begins at fertilization, according to modern science. This is acknowledged by the majority of experts in this field (1) (2). While I acknowledge the bias in both sources, it is worth seeing the scientific studies and evidence they point to. If you still disagree that human life begins at fertilization, please explain where is does begin. When the child leaves the mother, there is no evidence of a biological change occurring. You may think this is somewhat side tracking the debate, but I think it is very important. If you don't think human life exists at fertilization, please tell me where you think it begins and why.

I would say the scientific argument always trumps the philosophical argument, as science relies on evidence, but to confirm my stance, I will point out a few inconsistencies in this philosophical argument.

Apparently to have human life, you must have rationality and self consciousnesses. This is a very flawed analogy as it would mean people in comas are dead as well as people suffering from severe types of brain damage among many others. This is one of many reasons why I don't agree with Peter Singers theory.

I completely agree with your conclusion. Abortion is one of the only issues I am not libertarian on. I do seek to take away the choice of murder from the mother. I also agree with your pre rebuttal, both parties do have to have consent, but sometimes the opportunity in the abortion industry does lure in doctors, who later regret their decisions. Although I dont have time to supply evidence to this claim, I can supply it next time, as I know many examples of this happening, but this consent argument is very strong, the only problem is, people on both parties often consent, but then regret their decision later. I also dont have time to talk about the industry, but I think that is somewhat irrelevant to this topic anyway.

Sorry for the messy and short response, as I was under time constraints. I will look to answer questions and queries in a fuller manner next time. Thanks.

Debate Round No. 2


Thanks for a great response, with my final post I will refute your statements and reinforce my own position.

On my first point I brought up issues involving the family (people associated with the child). The idea of this argument was the reiterate the importance of choice. I brought up financial problems, later life work problems, unsafe parents/situation and brought up some material about adoptions.
Now I agree with your analysis in that this point depends on the second point however that does not mean we show give it now time or importance. I asked how it was moral to force someone to take on all these costs and problems if they do not want it. In stead of replying to that you claimed that I didn't cite sources (something you seem to believe is quite important.) But in you asking for sources you have misinterpreted the argument. It was simply using logic to determine likely outcomes for a family who did not want a child. However if you want some articles I'll put some in. The department of agriculture did a study which followed the expenses of raising a child (Up until the age of 16) - The result was $233,610 USD which in AUD is currently $304,721 (which only counts costs associated with the child and not anything else). For reference, the average full time annual earnings for someone living in NSW is $80,132 - I also brought up disadvantages in later working life. The guardian posted an article detailing several stats which show discrimination because of the fact they had to go on maternity leave. - Also a long document (I haven't read all of it) details several key arguments which reinforce my statements, I encourage you to look through the surveys and statistics they provide as well as some of the logical reasoning because they outline my point perfectly. - I brought up the negative impact that unsafe households have on children and here is an article from the daily mail which cites studies which clearly state there is a profound affect on children being in violent families - Finally a pro-adoption page posted an opinion piece about why adoption and abortion are not related and should not be used as alternatives to the other. -

Now that i've reinforced my logical claims in my first point I now want to point out what my opponent said and why it was wrong. The opposition has stated a belief and has used no facts, analysis, logic or basic reasoning to why you, the readers should take on his point of view. All he stated was "I believe that the birth parent should under no circumstances be able to put her rights above her child's, even if this means the parent has to go through things such as depression." That statement proves nothing and just says a belief. Sure, thats what he believes but it's no reason why women should have this option of abortion taken away from them. He has failed to mention why the unborn child's life is more important to the already alive women who's life could be ruined because she did not want to have a child but her country decided that she legally has to.
In contrast my point uses logic and now articles, facts and statistics to why the women involved should be allowed to prioritize herself.

My opponent also thinks the first point is irrelevant in light of the second point however I disagree with this. Step through this with me. The first point gives good reasons to why a potential parent should be given a choice based on the fact that this is a life changing event that some do not want forced onto them. That was the purpose of the first point. The second point's purpose was to illustrate the idea that it is moral to have an abortion. My opponent claims that the first point is meaningless however what point is there to proving that an abortion is moral if I do not prove that there are reasons why people need it to be moral. The debate isn't, this house thinks abortions are moral, it is about the whole thing and therefore dismissing the first point makes no sense as there needs to be a purpose to abortion. People don't do it because it's fun.

Now onto the second point. My opponent uses a very common attack against pro-abortion supporters. "If you don't think human life exists at fertilization, please tell me where you think it begins and why." This is a great question and is the downfall of many people who are pro-abortion supporters because they are unsure how to respond to this. I will not deny this fact. You posted two sources and it is commonly held fact and I accept that. If you examine my point I argue against the principle of a foetus not being a person. Not a human. Undeniably human life starts at fertilization and I'm sorry for confusing you if you think that was my argument. Harkening back to my analysis I said that there are two components to being human. 1. Being part of the homo sapiens species and 2. Being a person. I never once refuted the first statement which is what you sought to prove with science.

You did directly address my philosophical side of the argument by saying you don't believe in it. "I don't agree with Peter Singers theory.". To be fair you did provide to analogies to where the theory would also apply but you didn't provide any reasons to why these scenarios disprove the theory. In fact, peter signer actually mentions these group that fall under his theory and he supports the idea that they are not a person in that state. Now this may be extreme however the definition I have provided explains and supports an idea about what is a person. My opponent has provided no alternative, no answer and no reason why the specific examples he brought up disprove the theory. (I'll leave a link to a small summary of Peter Singer's theory because he probably explains it a lot better than I do) -

I want to end my part of a debate with a strong closing. Women aren't going out there to get an abortion for the sole purpose to kill a child, there is a large decision making process. Consent is important, and when you take away the ability to consent then you are taking away an important function which gives you a say in how you live your life. I do not advocate for people to always get abortions, I only advocate for the ability to consent about what they do once they are in this situation. If they wish to have a child, great, in fact, I prefer it to abortions. I want less abortions, and we achieve that through better education systems that aren't just based about complete abstinence, we achieve that through cheaper contraception methods, we do not achieve that by forcing women into a situation they do not want to be in that can potentially dramatically change their lives for the worse. I sought to prove that abortions were moral and important but they are by far a last resort. More methods need to be put in place to prevent this situation from occurring at all. Currently, the reality is that people need this service, people want this service and by taking it away we take away their ability to choose.

People are allowed to disagree with things, but as it is with everything you buy into it. It's a free market, if you do not agree with abortions, do not get one, simple as that. But don't believe for one moment that your ideas, your believes give you the right to take away someone else right to choose.

Finally, to my opponent and I look forward to your response and I thank you for what has been a good debate.


Thanks for the awesome response. I will now try too give a better response than last time, as I have no time parameters. I will deconstruct your response and weave my substantive into it.

You dedicated the first paragraph too talking about the cost of raising a child and about the costs presented. I still stand by my view that if a women was to have an unplanned pregnancy, it would be best to put that child into adoption. I read the article you put up about adoption, and am still not convinced by it. If you have an unplanned pregnancy, that is your fault, not the babies. It is your responsibility to decide between adoption or parenting, as I believe murder isn't a viable option. Also about me asking for sources, I was just saying you didn't provide them, but I went with your argument anyways. Sorry if you took that comment the wrong way, but I do believe studies are quite important in this context.

Next you talk about how I fair to support my claim to why I believe the child's life should not end because of the parents "right to choice". I will do so now. I have already established the fact, in my previous response, that proves the child is in fact human, and since this wasn't addressed in this response, I assume we can agree on that. Abortion should not be legal, on this basis alone. All human life has equal value, no matter how old or young. I don't think I need facts or statistics to argue on this basis. So basically what I am trying to argue, is that all human life is equal, therefore a human shouldn't have the choice too murder another human for their personal benefit.

Next you disagree with my statement about your first point being reliant on your second. I still stand by this claim. You argue that this is because this debate is not completely based on morality, where I would argue that it is. I think morality is absolutely the overriding factor in this debate, because it plays with life itself. No amount of economic analysis can compensate for the simple fact that abortion is murder. As humans, we shouldn't support murder for the benefit of another. Murder is far to serious to be looked over. A general rule of a good society is that murder is bad. The mother should only be able to prioritize herself in situations of direct life or death (e.g. chemotherapy). In any other situation, an abortion should not be able to happen.

Thirdly you accept the fact that fetus' are humans. Everything you say here is correct, until you contradict yourself at the end. You say you believe that a fetus is not a person, but a human. Then you say one of the requirements for being a human, to be a person. This makes no sense, and leads me to question the validity of this point.

Next you address Singers theory. I will admit, in my previous response I deconstructed this poorly, considering I as under heavy time constraints, but now I can talk about this in more detail. Considering I talked about your link to why a human and a person are not the same already, I will supply an alternative definition. The general definition of a person is "a human being regarded as an individual" ( Considering we already acknowledged that the fetus is separate from the mother, we can assume it is a person (remember you acknowledged individual human life begins at fertilization).

In your conclusion, one thing stood out too me. "If you don't agree with abortions, don't get one". I know this is just figure of speech, and not to do with your point, but i'll talk about it anyways. I feel like this is basically saying "if you don't agree with something, just don't do it". Using this logic, I could say "if you don't believe in harming people, just don't do it, if other people want to, that is their choice". This fails to acknowledge the value of human life. This argument is much better suited to words, rather than actions.

Thanks for the awesome debate, best of luck.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by NathanGimel 7 months ago
Check out my debate as well. Similar, but focuses on abortion for socio economic reasons.

To Lukert11, no one is saying that: sperm have the capability, whereas a zygote already is.

Posted by lukert11 7 months ago
A zygote has the same capability as sperm are you then in turn saying every time someone wacks off they should harvest it?
Posted by ItAllMatters 7 months ago
Abortion is wrong. I will leave it at that. It's murder. The killing of a potential child with a great mind. Such a a shame.
No votes have been placed for this debate.