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

a pregnant woman shouldnt always have the right to an abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/8/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 692 times Debate No: 56259
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)




at least later in the pregnancy... sometiems infant's rights should be prioritized. a mother assumed the risk of pregnancy, and then, she assumed the risk of carrying the child for many months.

to be clear, i'm focusing on later in pregnancy. but there and earlier, an argument could be made that earlier in the pregnancy she forfeits her right to not be pregnant by assuming that risk. much like... if you cause an accident, and the victim's body is somehow temporarily attachedk to your body, hypothetically speaking... a reasonable person would say the tortfeasor must at least wait a few months until they can be separated.

that analogy could be extended to later in pregnancy, and then topped off with the fact that she didn't bother to terminate when it was more debatable whether it's a person or not. (if it's debatable, who should decide? the governmnet? why not the mother who is more proximite?) when it was morally grayer.

later in the pregnancy though, it's not debatable about personhood. if there's no significant health or life or very very significant emotional problems, aborting the infant in the womb is no different than aborting it when it is born. the only difference, that the mother is hindered, is trumped by the risks she assumed, and that leaves nothing to justify abortion later in the pregnancy if an exception doesn't apply.
Debate Round No. 1


duly noted.
on a side point, given con has the highest ELO on this site, i'm honored that con has chosen to debate this. and extremely curious as to what will be argued. (especially given the caliber of past con arguments)


Resolved - A pregnant woman should not always the right to abortion

C1) Is the fetus a life or person

We first have to arrive at the fact a fetus is a person and not a life. We must examine all the information available to arrive at which one it is. The main argument in the case of abortion is that it could be considered murder, meaning that would be the death of another person. If you are just ending another life, that is entirely justifiable. We kill different types of life every day. Anything from animals, to plant, to ad infintum.

A) What qualifies something as a person and not a life

Common characteristics most people share are conscious, the ability to feel pain, thought, and response. There are a great number of traits a fetus must exhibit to be considered a person and not just a life

C2) Argument from self defense

The fetus by all means is a parasite to the mother

Parasite - an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment. [1]

The removal of nutrients from the body of the mother can constituted as harm because it is depriving the mother of it.

Therefore since a baby is reliant on the mother and using her body as a host, this can be construed as harm therefore the mother should have a right to abortion under the laws within the United States and other counties.

Justifiable homicide - Killing without criminal intent, just as in self defense [2]

We are promised the right to defend ourselves from any top of bodily harm, and a fetus is imposing bodily harm on a mother so she has the right to defend herself from the harm presented. Justifiable homicidal is recognized by the law and is allowed, mainly under the promise of self defense as promised to us by the second amendment [3]

C3) Murder/Morality

Even if she gets around the other two contentions she must then show that murdering in general is wrong. The thought and idea of what killing and murder is , is entirely dependent on culture. Most people assume murder is wrong from a morality perspective, it however is not objectively wrong to murder. A good many cultures have and always will embrace death and killing. The romans used gladiators to fight to the death in the coliseum [4], and even in modern time there are still tribes that kill for pleasure and fun[5]. There have always been cruel tribes that kill for pleasure throughout history [5]

With murder being permissible to some people and morally wrong to others, that just reinforces the idea that morality itself is just a subjective concept that is defined by culture and perspective.

C4) Util

Abortion is a great way to limit the population and promote population control. There are over 7 billion people in the world and it is getting harder and harder to control the amount of people vs the resources. China actually has a one child policy in most respects that limits the amount of children they can have to help balance this out [6]. In a specific society the amount of people have to balance out with the amount of food and resources that are available. If the amount of people in a society increase to much, then there are major issues (some of which china are facing now) that will end up occurring

Abortion on balance is great idea for population control.

C5) Mothers right to her own body

We need to view the mother not just as a host to the fetus but her own individual person.

" A pregnancy to a woman is perhaps one of the most determinative aspects of her life. It disrupts her body. It disrupts her education. It disrupts her employment. And it often disrupts her entire family life." [7]

This also plays into a womens bodily rights, even after conception if she is not ready to take the changes her body is undergoing she has the right to do with her body as she pleases. This also helps balance out the social impacts and equality. Women need free access to abortion in order to achieve full political, social, and economic equality with men. It is their right to do what they please with their body, and since the fetus is a parasite in their body, they have the right and should have the right to chose an abortion.


For my adversary to win this debate, there is a few things she must do

She must show that

(a) A fetus is not just a life but a human life so murdering the fetus is wrong
(b) Show that murder is wrong
(c) Show that a fetus is not imposing harm on the mother
(d) Show that a mother does not have the right to make choices regarding to her own body.

[7] Roe vs Wade
Debate Round No. 2


i should have stated clearer that i do not wish to debate the issue of life early in the pregnancy. later in the pregnancy, such as a week before due date, the baby in the womb is no different than the baby outside the womb. is it not? thus it meets the qualities of life mentioned. does it not?

self defense. you did not respond to the issues of assumption of risks, and the analogy i posed? she assumed the risk of getting pregnant by having sex, so at least later in pregnancy, it is a fact we have to consider. it's not like she was just laying there, not engaging in sex, and a fetus suddenly attached itself to the mother. also, she also didn't abort when it was morally grayer earlier in pregnancy, so she assumed the fact of being pregnant, if an exception doesn't apply.
and, the analogy. if you caused an accident and caused someone to be dependent on you in general or physically attached to you, and you couldn't separate the people for a number of months, no one who can be taken seriously would say the person who caused the accident can just kill the victim. how is this analogy different than the debate we are having?

con argues that murder and the morality or lack thereof is something that is culturally derived as wrong or not. sure. but this debate is clearly about what 'should' be the case, should the mother always have a right to an abortion or should she not? this means you have to argue what you think, and why etc etc. pointing out that morals are culturally derived doesn't add much.
plus, on the culture point, it is generally accepted that murder is wrong. to point out that it's not always considered wrong is at best an academic point. for effective purposes, i and almost everyone agrees that murder is wrong, so, given that, how should it be applied to the abortion debate?

population control. this is really a secondary issue. if we can tackle the murder morality issue, self defense etc, then this issue will follow. if murder is wrong, and abortion cannot be viewed as always self defense, then using it as population control wont make sense. if murder isn't wrong, or it's always self defense, then population control might as well follow.

woman's body. this gets back into the assumption of the risks point, and the analogy that i provided. if you can't negate those, then the woman's bodily rights can't prove superior to the life of the child. it hinges on those prior points.

the thesis of this debate.... the mother shouldn't *always* have the right to an abortion, has not been clearly negated or argued against. most who comment on this debate say it's unfair by me, cause the latitude made, almost on one agrees in absolute terms that the mother should be able to abort any time she wants.
does con seriously contend that she should be able to abort a baby a week before her due date (with no commonly thought of exception) but just because she wants to?


R1) Life

This was not addressed at all. My adversary fails to show that the bad is not just a human but alive. She states that the baby inside the womb is no different than the baby outside of the womb. This if false

The baby gains different characteristics week by week and even more after its born [1]. My adversary would have needed to show that the baby is in fact a human and not a life. Saying it shares the same characteristics in the womb as when its born is false so we can dismiss this statement.

R2) Argument from defense

She fails to address the issue at hand

[P1] A baby is taking nutrients from the mother
[P2] Removal of nutrients and be conceived as harm
[C] Since this is considered harm, the mother has the right to abort the baby under US laws.

She says the mother accepts the health risks when she is getting pregnant. That still does not negate the fact the baby is harming the mother. If you agree to let someone punch you in the face for 9 months, and then decide you want them to stop. At that point if they chose not to stop punching you for 9 months. You are justified to use psychical violence and possibly death to prevent the harm that is coming to you under US law.

R3) Morality

Pro argues that morality is generally considered wrong, but that does not mean it is morally wrong. It means it is morally wrong the people that believe this. Pro would have to show that morality is objectively wrong, because if you can justify murder in any possible country, you can justify murder in the US. Therefore the principle behind the contention stands.

R4) Util/ population control

As she states she would have to properly address the issues above to defeat this, and she has failed to do so properly. This argument stands.

R5) Right a woman has to her own body



The resolution is essentially a mother should have the right to abortion in every specific circumstance. I have shown this in a majority of ways

My adversary is claiming that by having an abortion in every possible situation you are essentially committing murder but she has failed to distinguish that a fetus is a human life and not just life or the potential of human life. If you are killing the potential of life or something that is not a human life, you are not committing murder therefore she fails to address this point.

She has not addressed he argument of self defense, nor bothered to refute that a fetus is causing harm to the mother. She actually agrees in a sense that the fetus is causing harm which clarifies my stance, by saying the mother agrees to the harm. As I have this argument does not stand.

She also has failed to address that even if we consider the baby a human life (which she has failed to show that it is ) she would then have to show murder is wrong. She has not done so

Due to this argument standing my util and women rights to her own body arguments also stand.

The resolution is negated and I affirm that a mother should always have the right to an abortion.

To defeat this syllogism and initial point she would have to show that taking nutrients is not considered harm. She fails to do this so this argument (however trollish it is) stands.

Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by PlumberGirl123 2 years ago
IT IS OUR RIGHT TO DO WHAT WE WANT WITH OUR BODIES!!!! Do not try to take that freedom away. If men could get pregnant there would be abortion clinics around every corner and they would be more popular then Wal-Mart. Yes people see a cute little baby face but abortion is a woman"s choice and she is aware of the results and effects so stop trying to make it seem like we are doing/supporting something 'shameful'. A woman should not be ashamed for having sex and getting pregnant whether it was unplanned or not.

oGov. already is way too controlling/involved.
oWomen would"ve rather died trying to have an abortion rather then go through with the pregnancy.
oUs women will find a way to abort a fetus whether its legal or not. Therefore, its safer/healthier to keep it legal.
oA lot of kids who have been adopted get mistreated, abused, molested, raped, depressed, etc. (state story examples)
oPlanned Parenthood thinks of babies as $$$
oAbortions give more jobs. (Abortionists, people making appointments, running supplies, etc.)
Posted by PlumberGirl123 2 years ago
The fetus does not comprehend what is happening, it is still is the females womb. I highly doubt you would go to a pregnant lady's stomach and say "would you like to be aborted?" It barely knows anything; its eyes are still closed. One thing that is messed up is that people THINK the fetus is not part of the mothers body... are you crazy?! It doesn"t matter whether it has different DNA!!! It wouldn"t even live if it didn"t have the mother"s body caring for it! The fetus is connected to the mother"s body, it takes care of it until it is out of the womb and the umbilical cord is cut. Another thing that i hear often is "if you don"t want a baby, then stop doing it". Let"s go straight to reality here and say no one would stop doing it! Yes you use condoms and birth control but ABORTION HAS THE SAME FINAL/END RESULT/GOAL AS CONDOMS AND BIRTH CONTROL. THAT IS TO NOT HAVE A BABY! Yes birth control and condoms help prevent you from getting pregnant but it also have the end result goal which is not to have a baby. I am so happy abortion has been legal for 40 years... It shouldve been more but hey 40 years isnt too bad right? Approximately 55 million fetuses have been aborted since abortion became legal. Some people do not understand that it is better to have abortion be legal so pregnant women can abort their babies safely. I would rather have hundreds of abortion clinics rather than hundreds of women dieing from using the coat hanger method also known as the back alley method. So many women were dieing because they did not want a baby. Why force someone to give birth to a baby they don"t want?! Don"t force someone against their will to take care of a kid. There are so many reasons to have an abortion. Yes rape and incest is a very good reason.. but there are other reasons like over population, poverty, illnesses, unwanted, inconvenience and much more. It could ruin a marriage, relationship, and life. However, how, why, and when we got pregnant is not important! IT IS OUR RI
Posted by PlumberGirl123 2 years ago
ABORTION IS ONE OF THE MOST AMAZING THINGS OUT THERE!!! There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. A woman has her body and with that body comes rights! A lot of people call pro-choicers "baby killers" or "Satan worshippers". However that is not the case with us. It is our bodies and if we don"t want to carry a fetus then we don"t have to. Abortion gives women hope in life and there is many reasons why I say that.. Which you will find out if you keep reading this. IF YOU ARE PRO-LIFE, then don"t get abortions....simple as that. If you are a boy then you have nothing to worry about. So many people say "Put it up for adoption". That is the woman's choice. Personally if I was pregnant and didn"t want to have a baby I would choose abortion over adoption. One reason is because of over population. There are way too many humans in this world and its still expanding as we speak! The more humans there are, the less resources we have. Also, there is a high number of unemployed. I would not want my kid in that situation. My second reason is because when if I was ever to have kids then I will have them when I am ready. I will NOT give mine up for adoption, knowing they are alive and I am not there to take care of them. So If I was ever to have kids then I would be their provider..not put them in adoption, wondering when they will be adopted or not. My kid would wonder why I out it up for adoption, if I am thinking about them, if i loved them, etc. ANOTHER thing people say is "What about the 'baby's choice?"..what about it? It has no say.. The reason why it has no say is because the mother has the say. When you were born and a little kid, who had the final say?..Your Mother/Father. Who took you to school and put on your clothes and said whether you could hang out with your friends or not?..Your parents did that. You were not the one making choices until you grew much older near the age of 18. So again...the fetus does not have a say. The fetus does not comprehend what is happeni
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
Holy smokes. This debate was largely hampered by the fact that, basically, Con got 2 rounds of argumentation to Pro's 1--but this seems to have been Pro's fault.

Pro, granted, did not specify that the first round was acceptance. Con probably should have launched into immediate rebuttals. He wasn't called out for dropping the points, though, and rebutted them subsequently in his first round of actual argumentation.

Pro did get the first round of argumentation, too, but Pro's initial round was scanty, and while the second round of argumentation was greater, Con's rebuttal addressed most of the points. In the end, Pro had BoP, and failed to actually establish her case. Con called out the unsupported assertions, and the lack of coherently constructed case.

As Pro had presumptive BoP, and as Pro failed to create a fully coherent case, and as what Pro DID present was rebutted sufficiently by Con, arguments to Con. Part of what helped Con, too, was that his case was presented as more than mere assertion--he had sources to support his points. Pro did not. As such, sources also go to Con. Everything else was equal enough.

As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
i should have made rape an exception. i copy and pasted poorly so it's not included. i did include emotional health, but one might not see extreme health issues being a problem by rape, necessarily. i should have been express about it, as i had in past debates. i do think she has a responsiblity to abort sooner than later even with rape, but it's not something i want to quibble about. she may be torn about it. etc. though at some point, a line has to be drawn. she shouldnt be able to abort a baby of rape, a week before her due date, just cause she doesn't want to have a baby that was from rape.
Posted by iOS 2 years ago
I cant wait for this to get on the home page in 3 days :D
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Linkish1O2 2 years 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had plenty of sources, pro had failed in proving their point with any sources, it all seemed based on an opinion rather then fact.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting argument--this debate was closer than it should have been (IMHO). All Pro needed to do was to suggest 1 solitary instance in which abortion was not allowed, and to defend that instance. Pro didn't really do this, which undermined the efficacy of her case structure. Con's arguments re: overpopulation were odd and the solvency link wasn't made well. The murder argument seemed to defy common sense, which left me evaluating the argument about a fetus's status as a person. Is it? Pro says that a late-term fetus is a person; Con says that a late term fetus isn't. Neither really warrant their position at all. But, insofar as Pro has the BOP, and is making the positive claim, Pro is the one who needs to convince me that the fetus is morally significant in that sense. Since Pro fails to do this--largely through a lack of evidence--I am left unable to affirm. I therefore default Con...despite his apparent lack of effort in putting forth convincing arguments with strong links.