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

abortion should be legal

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2014 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 645 times Debate No: 67673
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Abortion should be legal. Why so? First of all we are talking about freedom of choice. Everyone has the freedom to do what their want with their body and for mothers it includes their foetus. Why so? First of all the foetus doesn't go into government's protection at having the right to live. Some people continuously argue that foetus has the right to live. This is however very wrong. First of all the abortions mostly happen before the foetus are considered fully alive with its organs bodily function, etc. Furthermore, there are one necessary element for owning a right, which is rationality. You need to be a person of rational mind. Because only when you are rational, you can consider yourself a member of society and consent to the idea of having a government over you and join the social contract existing there. For that very reason we are allowed to take the life of animals for say food, etc. They are living creatures, but we take their rights to live because they have never had the rationality that makes them a part of society. Same goes to foetus. They are barely alive and even if they are alive, they don't have the rationality making them part of society and granting them protection.
Second of all, let's talk about greater good. Government are basically utilitarian in nature. They want the greatest benefit possible. It is something achievable by abortion only. Someone won't do abortion for fun. It is expensive and risky so there must be a good reason. Usually it's either because they are not ready to have a baby or because the mother's life are in danger. In both scenario, biggest benefit are achievable when abortion is done and seeing that i have proven to you that it is justifiable, why not?


Now please just listen the to the argument with an open mind. You can get rid of the idea that I am some Christian nutter justifying my view as its what God says.

I agree with freedom of choice but where do we draw the line? I think it likely you would agree that freedom to kill another human say if you had a three year old child that depends on you to sustain its existence. Freedom of choice but what about when one makes the wrong choice? Are we supposed to standby while someone makes the wrong choice?

So the right to live depends on the government you say? Well if you accept social contractarian ethics maybe. However, what about if you were born on a dessert island and some American explorers came to the island. As you have never agreed to the contract either tacitly or otherwise you have no rights and the explorers can kill you without being unjustified doing so. I could chose not consent to the social contract, perhaps I am against the governmental ethics- can I be lawfully killed? Also when did you enter the social contract? I doubt you were rational enough at 3?

Now you mention having rational as a reason for giving right to life. However, what about people with severe learning disabilities, some are the kindest, most loving people I've ever met- should rational really determine whether one should live?

You admit foetuses could be alive which is interesting. I suggest you don't go round killing things just because you are not sure they are alive. They are at an earlier stage of development dependent on a mother just like a child is. More detail later.

I think the social contract works best if we adopt a utilitarian law making system which encompasses all human life no matter its stage of development. If we universalise that killing is right then we are more likely to develop into more virtuous people and create a better society- you wound not think someone who kills your dog is as capable as you as being a moral member of society.
Debate Round No. 1


Wrong choice is unlikely. Aborting your baby is not the same with buying pizza next door. Doctor tells you the consequence. Furthermore, if by some reasons, there are complications and harms, that have been countered with the fact that you consent with the notion of abortion to begin with. The same way that smoking is ruining your lungs but you can't blame the company simply because you already consented when you choose to smoke. Same goes to abortion

Second of all, we are talking about legalizing abortion. It means that we are talking in a policy context. Whether or not such policy should be legal. It means that the actors are government and citizens, not some dude in a desert. Disagreeing with the limitations and justifications of a governmental ethics shows you as not wanting to take part as a citizen of a country. It means that you should also not get all the benefits of a citizen, including protection, your rights, etc. If you want all the benefits of a citizen, you should follow government regulations.

It is indeed true that some people are not deemed as rational, people with learning diabilities or people who are mentally ill for example. But that is also the reason why we treated them differently. We give them different punishment for example (asylum and not prison). We also take some of their rights such as banning them to vote. We do this because we know that it will produce harm rather than benefit if we allow them to.

Last of all, the killing. Alright let's assume that they are living or almost alive. We still need to legalize abortion. Why so? Because as government you always prioritize. And rather than prioritizing half living child in a womb, it is better to prioritize parents who have spent half their life paying taxes, fulfilling law, and basically contributing to government. Especially, when these children are also going to have a pretty bad future seeing that their parents choose to abort them.

PS. sorry for not using paragraphs previously


Can you explain your first paragraph argument in a more coherent way? I want to do the argument justice in my response.

Legalization should be an outcome from what is moral. So good laws should have a moral founding and therefore the moral debate is crucial to the argument. I think I am correct in thinking you believe the man in the dessert has no rights and therefore can be justifiably slaughtered (I wonder if you"d want tis if you were that man). Ok, you say that if you are not wanting to take part as a citizen of the country then you shouldn"t benefit from its protection. Ok, put yourself in this situation. You live under a Sharia law government. You disagree with the morals of these laws and therefore opt out of being a citizen and by your logic it would be morally justifiable for them to torture and kill you.

Taking away the right to vote is very different I think, to killing someone without rational. We treat them differently for their good as well as ours (they"d suffer if they voted wrong) but we don"t go as far as ending their lives for our benefit.

You mention a government should prioritise "parents who have spent half their life paying taxes, fulfilling law, and basically contributing to government" over the fetus but surely exactly the same thing could be said in justification of killing a three year old (who also depends on the parents efforts to survive). I think its unfair to say that the "would be aborted" are doomed for a bad future, many men are brought up in poor homes with single mothers and turn out great. I"d want my parents to take the risk with me- nothing worse than death.
Debate Round No. 2


What that man in the desert and the dude with sharia law do not own is the special rights owned by citizen of a certain area (health care, etc). It is true that there are rights owned by everyone but these are rights that are deemed as universal. Special rights are enacted by the authority these people have submitted themselves (for example, U.S army will prioritize the protection of U.S citizen in war even though it could mean the death of innocent civilian from different country).

Ending lives for our benefit happened a lot of time. Take the example of death penalty, of soldiers killing in war. You go with the logic that everyone has rights, but here we are taking their rights away for the sake of a greater good. Same goes here, It is true that there are those that want to take risk but we cannot generalize it for the whole society. There should always be an opp out mechanism, hence abortion.

Moral is subjective. Everyone has different views about morality, thus abortion should be an option. Your argument are made with the "sanctity of life", which is deemed much smaller than the good coming toward the parents with abortion (they don't have to carry burden, the mother's life is safe). Are you willing to risk the life of the mother and the future of the family? How will you feel if your daddy tells you that your mommy died because of you? The rights of life and welfare of the family are being threatened and as government, we must protect it. Right now our option are basically to either force the mothers to born the son with possible huge consequences or leave the choice at their hand. We must take the second because in the end, it is these people that will know what is the best option, thus option must be in their hand.

Last of all, bear in mind that foetus is not fully alive. Meaning, that if they are unlucky enough to be aborted, well, although this sounds cruel, that is a lottery of birth and it won't know seeing that it is not alive in the first place.


The Sharia law example was just to show that there could be an immoral state (some may argue Syria or Iraq in 2000) and that therefore laws should come from a more objective (maybe utilitarian) standpoint rather than merely a social contract. Your whole argument seems to rely on the view that only those in the social contract are protected so there is only an ethical system protecting a few people. I do not believe this is a sensible route to take as it would justify a country with its own social contract, for this example we"ll use Japan, dropping an atomic bomb on America if it is prioritizing the safety of its citizens. As far as Japan is concerned Americans, by your logic, merely count as "men in the dessert". I would hope you would not go so far to accept this as a justifiable action.

You say that taking people"s rights away can be justified for a greater good. I would argue, that people having certain rights is essential for the greater good. I advocate utilitarianism and I hold that if we all have these rights we feel a lot happier and safer and that is essential to happiness. Happiness of people is the greater good. You seem to mistake serving the state as the greater good, but surely the purpose of the state is to protect those under it.

There is a sanctity of life and that"s why I would not want the mother risking her life to have a baby and abortion should be legal in these cases (the vast majority of abortions are not for this reason). The mother also has a sanctity of life and if she dies then both her and the baby die. 2 deaths vs. 1- simple right? Furthermore, you argue that being told you killed your mother is a good reason for the fetus to be killed off. However, it would not be an act they were responsible for and I think that ultimately people born in such circumstances would appreciate life even at the cost of knowing the truth.

I would argue that the fetus IS alive- being less developed does = less alive- are children less alive than adults?
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by dsjpk5 3 years ago
The 2,000 character limit really hampered this debate. Neither side could develop a decent argument.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Please break up your paragraphs.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by jzonda415 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct was equal on both sides. I award S&G to Pro as I noticed several more mistakes on the Con side (although Pro's use of the term dude was taken into consideration). Arguments go to Con, however, as he successfully pointed out flaws in Pro's arguments justifying abortion. One of Pro's main arguments on government was completely dismantled by Con with the example on Sharia Law (Pro's response universal rights and "special" rights didn't quite hold water). Many of Pro's arguments were just unexplained, paving the way for an easy Con win. This can be seen in Pro's points about "prioritizing", disabilities and rationality and the fetus not being fully alive. Con successfully pointed out flaws in the examples Pro brought forward. I walked away from this debate better convinced by Con than by Pro; thus, I give arguments to Pro. Conduct was fine, and there were no sources making a source vote irrelevant. Always happy to elaborate on this vote.