The Instigator
Con (against)
1 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
17 Points

abortion should be legal in every state

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: 9/28/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 792 times Debate No: 38224
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)




i am strongly against abortion simply because man does not give life and therfore should not take life ,especially a life that innocent.How can this be the right thing if people are being locked away for years when they take an innocent life but yet still we are fighting to be allowed murder our own unborn babies.
Debate Round No. 1


thank you for accepting,
considering i have already made a point i wish to give you an oppurtunity to present your first point before i proceed.


Contention 1

Abortion in cases where it could danger a mother’s life

For the sake of argument, let us say that a fetus is in fact a living breathing person, and acting on abortion is committing murder. Now we have an entirely different issue. What happens in a situation where the mother could die from the pregnancy? If abortion is banned, the most obvious answer is that she will die. Whether this will or will not occur a majority of time is erroneous, but claiming that abortion should be outlawed all together would give no choice to the mother in this situation if it did actually happen. These are just a few facts on how many pregnancies can be fatal.

“Globally, an estimated 287,000 maternal deaths occurred in 2010”

“Of all pregnancies anywhere, 15 percent will have a potentially fatal complication. In the developing world, having a baby will be the riskiest thing a woman will do. “

Now there are a few ways we can look at this. If this is an early term pregnancy and we know for a fact, that if the pregnancy continued the mother would die. There is a big problem with this and it is cited and acknowledged by multiple people

(A) If the pregnancy continues, the mother will die. If the mother dies, the child will die.
(B) If the pregnancy is ended through abortion, the child will die, but the mother will live.

Now you face a dilemma. Either way the child is going to die, so the only just cause is to save the mother. That is one way an abortion should be justified and not illegal in all circumstances.

Now let us review a situation in which the baby could live if the mother would die.

(A) Having the child will result in the death of the mother, but the child can be saved
(B) Ending the Childs life would save the mother

Now there is a much bigger dilemma. A life is going to end either way, so we have to gauge the value of a life. There is no objective way to judge this. Imgaine if a robber breaks into your house and points a gun at your wife and newborn child. He then gives you the choice that one may live and the other may die. He even allows you time to discuss this with your wife to see if she is willing to die. This is a situation that surpasses common law because of the situation. Much like murder in the case of self defense. While murder is wrong, it is justified within the situation.

This is almost the same situation with abortion, with fatal situations playing the role of the robber. There is no way for anyone outside of that family to judge the value of a life. This is a difficult circumstance to be put in, but with the child having no way to respond in both situations, the only viable way to judge this is let the parents decide. In the case of abortion they have never seen this child, or have not developed the same type of connection in which the husband and wife have. Imagine if you are with a girl for 7 years, and at the age of 25 she encounters this situation. A good amount of people would choose to keep the wife alive or want their wife to stay alive. The main thing is, that they are allowed to have that choice. When my adversary is claiming, that there is no situation in which abortion should be allowed. He is taking his perspective of abortion and what he would do in this situation, and applying it for all situations and circumstances like this. This can and should not be done. In this type of situation, only that family has the right to choose the outcome.

Even recent studies show that pregnancy is actually more fatal now than it was years ago

"The maternal death rate in the U.S. is creeping upward — to more than double what it was 25 years ago. Systems identifying deaths have improved, so how much the increase can be attributed to risk is uncertain. But experts agree maternal deaths are no longer declining, are underestimated, largely preventable and disproportionately affect certain groups."[1]

"The rate of severe and fatal complications during and after delivery have also doubled in the US within the last decade, according to a 2012 federal study"[2]

Contention 2

Is a fetus a life or is it a human life.

I am not going to spend much time on this because it is overall irrelevant to some of the points I will be making. I would like to spend a small bit of time on this though, just to clarify some basic thoughts.

The fetus is in fact is a life. That point cannot be argued or disputed. The next logical question one may ask is whether or not it is a human life. This is a far more in-depth question. My adversary will surely spend some of his/her allotted words on presenting the fact that a fetus is a life at conception. Again this is not the underlying question. This is the basic process of thought in which most people would exhibit.

(A) A fetus is a life and it was conceived by a human, therefore the fetus is a person or a baby.

I think this exhibits some flaws in logic, because the next logical step that my adversary would take is that killing this person or baby after the time it was conceived would be murder.

Murder – The act of unlawfully taking an innocent life without justification.

So how do we define what makes us human. I would almost argue for the fact that the fetus would have to exhibit pain, feelings, emotion, and conscious. It must have some type of senses. If ending a life were considered murder, we could be put on trial for stepping on an insect. An insect is a life, and almost anything we can imagine is in fact living. This is in fact almost impossible to show and prove at what stage it develops these qualities, which is why it is such a controversial issue. This varies from state to state and is also a huge reason that late term abortion is banned. One of many studies shows this.

“Anand argues that because fetuses can respond to stress or other stimuli at 20 weeks, abortion after that point causes them "severe and excruciating pain." The bulk of the scientific literature on the subject, however, finds that the brain connections needed to feel pain are not in place until at least 24 weeks, which is also the earliest possible time a fetus becomes viable outside the womb. Anand's testimony has been used to justify state and federal laws banning abortions after 20 weeks; those efforts have passed in nine states since 2010.”

“Dr. Kanwaljeet "Sunny" Anand, a University of Tennessee professor of pediatrics, anesthesiology, and neurobiology who has promoted the idea that 20 weeks post-conception is the point when a fetus begins to feel pain. None of this evidence follows or aligns with almost any other scientific research done on this subject”

While a fetus may be a life, it does not start to develop characters that humans share until around 20-24 weeks. I do not need to spend much more time on this because as I said earlier, it is irrelevant.

Contention 3

Self Defense

For the sake of argument let us say that aborting a fetus is committing a murder. Is there ever a circumstance in which committing a murder can be justified.

Justifiable Homicide - Rightful; warranted or sanctioned by law; that which can be shown to be sustained by law[3]

We are also by law promised the right to act in self defense.

"The right of self-defense (according to U.S. law) (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for civilians acting on their own behalf to engage in violence for the sake of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including the use of deadly force."[4]

So if we took pros stance and actually considered the fetus a human, we are promised by law the right to terminate it if it could endanger the mothers life. In the case of terminal pregnancies, the mother is in fact suffering and will die from it. Telling her she does not have the right to reasonably defend herself because it does not happen that often is a bold statement to make.

In Closing

Pro believes abortion should be banned on a federal level and not allowed at all. We are denying a woman a right to defend her body if that is the case. We are also not allowing her to chose whether she wants to live in situations where her life is in danger. This is a choice that should be made between her and her family. If my girlfriend were laying on that bed and could die from a pregnancy, I would want more than prayers. I would want a soultion.

Debate Round No. 2


After analysing my oppenent's point of view i realised that he looked at this matter from one angle.That is ,abortion because of medical reasons,i cant say to you that the correct thing to do in a situation like that is to save the baby and leave the mother to die because the mother may have a husband who loves her and have already attached to her,so in a situation like this where it is strictly for medical purposes and abortion seems to be the only way to save the motherls life then i agree that it should be allowed.
On the other hand abortion to prevent shame and other troubles that would come with teenage pregnancy,in some cases pregnacy outside of marriage and even pregnacy where the wife has been unfaithful and is now having a baby for her partner outside of marriage should be illegal altogether. If abortion is legallised without boundaries then this will just be an easy way out for women to become sexually active even more than before and not have to worry about giving birth.
Some people would even ask the question 'what if a woman was raped and is now expecting?' and i say to that question even if rape is the case abortion should not be the victim's only alternative because arrangements can be made for the baby to be adopted at birth . Saying that the baby would serve as an emotional reminder of what happened in the past is not the way out ,although i sympathise with victims of rape who have conceived babies for their attacker i say to you please keep in mind that there are happy couples out there who have tried for years to get pregnant but simply cant because on infertility so for you to have that ability to bring a precious soul into this world and give it up is saddening.
I close by saying that abortion strictly for medical purposes is not wrong and if anyform of abortion is to be allowed then this should be it but abortion for self purposes other than health is disgraceful .Think of what that child could have become in the future , think of if you were aboerted.


I will take that as a concession.

My adversary claims that abortion should not be legal as we can see by the topic. She says tt should be illegal. She then changes the resolution so that abortion should support cases where it could cause danger to someone. She also drops my self defense argument.

Therefore extend all resolutions because she conceded that should should be legal in some circumstances and because of the remaining points that were dropped.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 3 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 basically conceded to Pro in the last Round. Pro's arguments were very well explained. This debate was easily won by Pro.
Vote Placed by MysticEgg 3 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 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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, my opinion wasn't swayed by this debate - although it's largely irrelevant. I'll assume Con conceded the debate and not - as it could be taken as - committed a burden of proof fallacy. I'm kind like that. ;D Spelling and grammar were quite bad for Con's part. Spelling and grammar go to Pro. However, arguments go to Pro as he gave clear contentions that were set out easily and not just a wall of text. The content of said arguments were also very good. Sources also go to Pro, as he was the only one to use them. So that's 1-6 points awarded. Good debate, guys!
Vote Placed by TheSilentHorseman 3 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Considering that CON specified the resolution to include all forms of abortion, she conceded the debate and left no room for anyone except the PRO to win. There were several grammatical errors on the part of the CON, and she provided no evidence whatsoever to back up any claims she made.