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


Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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: 12/17/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 752 times Debate No: 84030
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




Abortion involves a mother taking the life of an unborn, defenseless child. Many argue that rape pregnancies pose a situation in which abortion can and/ or should be considered. What I don't understand is why the person least involved in the matter at all (the baby) is being punished most severely. That makes no sense. Another common argument is that the unborn fetus is not yet living at the time of abortion. Abortions can be done up to 24 weeks into the pregnancy. A baby's heart starts beating 18 days into conception. How is it that a beating heart is not a sign of life.


In the wise words of George Carlin. "Why is it that people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't even want to fawk in the first place?"

Well, regardless if the fetus is a human at any rate, abortion should be considered, and be choice. This really doesn't need much explaining if one is t
to use their head a little. Example, the issue on raped victims and abortion in this case is an easy knock out victory. Why should a female who's been raped at lets say age 15, or age 16 (any age) rather have to carry the burden of having a unwanted baby from a total stranger. A baby that will grow up not having a father, a baby that could potentially have natural born diseases and health problems, especially considering most of these attackers DO HAVE diseases which often is the case? Why should a baby be born to suffer a life time before death? To feel such emotion, to live with that knowing every holiday that goes by, a father figure won't be there for him.
I find it injustice more so on the female who's been raped if she weren't allowed an abortion. It's a fact that most young pregnancies in general are a negative for several reasons, one being the mother usually can't support the baby with funds, again, a big negative, therefore having to put the baby up for adoption. So in rape cases, it's almost safe to say, the baby would be A: Born with disabilities B: Have no parents and be put in an adoption center C: Having a struggling mother who won't be able to set out and accomplish her goals and be held back by limitations.

Now, take that into consideration, everyone wants to protect the baby, all but wait, he will be born with no parents, and with disabilities assuming, and also after born, no one then at that point gives a damn, especially once he becomes an adult. Also did I mention most of these children end up being on the wrong side of the law? Most end up doing crimes.

Now, as for the occasional mothers who willingly want babies, and decide to abort, or mothers who have unprotected sex, and get preggo, and need to abortion, then well, that's a different matter, but again, it's a choice, and needs to stay that way, even if it's stupid.

This is just going to be the central point of my argument. I will list off more once replied back to.
Debate Round No. 1


I'll start back with the rape case. Why should the one person least involved be punished. It's still a human being that is given no such choice in the matter or life or death. The three inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property here are not being protected as promised by the us government. Existence is always more favored than non-existence. A baby who let's say does have a disease upon birth or has to face the burden of growing up without a mother or father is always better off than a person never even given a chance in the first place. As for the financial situations that may cause one to get an abortion, adoptive services are always available for these types of reasons. There is always an alternative than killing the baby.


Sure, the baby is not given no such choice in the matter, you're right, BUT IT CANNOT MAKE THAT CHOICE EITHER.

See how that counter logic works? Also, you mentioned the baby growing up having no parents, being disabled with god knows what is better than living? That's an opinion, but I'm sure if you talk to just about anyone with a deadly disease, anyone like a quad, or someone who can't function, they will will tell you that they rather be dead than to go through what they do. I know this cause I've spoken to many online, and they are miserable, and the way they express themselves also shows that they are without even needing to say a single word. So to me, it would seem the majority would rather be non existent. Sure you might see some on the news media on TV saying how they are glad to be alive and progressing, but that's on TV.

You brought up the governments and stuff and are restricting this abortion debate to USA laws, and that's alright, I will argue this to. That's a double edged sword. Last I checked, I'm in the USA, last I checked, we got something most other countries don't and you know what that is? It's a single word, I'm sure you might know by now, it's called "freedom". The freedom to do such things and face consciences.

Why should we take a step back as a country? What's next? Are we going to stone them?

An abortion can somewhat be compared to lets say a family member dying on life support and suffering terribly. You know they are going to die or pull through perhaps, but they can't make the decision themselves to end the life support themselves. The expenses are rising, the decision is up to you to decide. So using what you know, you must look at things from the outside. Can they live? Will they be the same as before? Would they want to live with not being the same? Oh but so many questions. With an abortion, there is several factors as I've listed that could potentially be wrong with the baby. Formalities, diseases, life with no parents, or one parent and so much more, a life maybe full of crime bringing horrors onto others, would the baby themselves want to live like that? Even thugs often regret being the way that they are and wished they could have changed and rather be dead. The ultimate decision is up to the parent to decide. It seems the parent is the 2nd least likely taken into accountant when deciding to be abortion. It's always pro life, or pro choice and arguments from both sides, the parent is left out in the dark with no consideration about their well being AT ALL, more so than the baby in fact which is sad. Yeah, the parent has the choice to make sure, but no one is concerned for them.
Debate Round No. 2


Freedom seemed to be a focus point during your argument. That's exactly what is not being given to the baby. America is, yes, one of the few places in the world with freedom. But it needs to be for everyone or no one. Your comparison between abortion and taking a family member off of life support are two very different instances. In one instance, you have a child child that could "possibly" grow up with disease or having to deal with the fact that only one or no parent is there. In the other, you have someone who's the equivalent of a vegetable that has no chance of ever being more than that. You weigh your options between keeping someone unconsciously alive that has no hope or taking them off life support. What I really want to emphasize is the word "possibly". It is never determined for sure that any of the things you have said may happen. Becoming a criminal, hating life because of feeling neglected due to lack of parents, or being disease ridden are all possibilities but the chances of those things happening are minute.

You seem to be using rape pregnancy as a sort of building ground for your whole argument. I don't blame you saying as this is the strongest aspect of any abortion debate. I do want to ask how you would defend the case of a "teenage pregnancy, bust in the condom" sort of scenario. A teenager who unintentionally becomes impregnated and gets an abortion because she's "not ready." I'm curious as to how would defend this type of scenario as opposed to the stereotypical rape victim argument.


Yes, the rape case for abortions are quite the best arguments given they provide a better "clear" ground for both pro life and pro choice. It's worth noting that the majority of pro life people are firm believers in god, and for religious reasons, are against abortion. I would say in that case, you would be setting the baby free into the kingdom of heaven(not arguing this, but this is just food for thought in looking at it from a pro choice religious aspect, and this is irrelevant beside the part that most pro life people are believers of god but since the debate hasn't gone to this topic and would be too late now, I'm going to rebuttal your points from your post, and address the questions that you asked).

You asked how would I defend the abortion case in other circumstances? As I've said in my first post, and I quote
"Now, as for the occasional mothers who willingly want babies, and decide to abort, or mothers who have unprotected sex, and get preggo, and need to abortion, then well, that's a different matter, but again, it's a choice, and needs to stay that way, even if it's stupid."

This is exactly what I said. Now to go more into detail about this which is best, I want to start off with those circumstances. In those cases, the mother of course would be at fault but at the same time, victim to those who criticize and protest against her. Yes, it's often said that one does bury their own grave, and this is true just for about most choices in life, but one that should stand at from this is whole ordeal is that there is no clear win situation for the mother.

You did ignore my whole paragraph stating how the mother is left in the dark and not taken into account of their feelings, and well being (which by the way is an important thing, and also worth addressing with your own thoughts).

Now going back to why I said it's stupid at the end of that quote. I said it was stupid because the situation of unsafe sex or not being totally decisive if you want babies should NEVER occur. This is almost entirely why my posts have been centered around rape case abortions as those are more so something that the woman has no control of. Sure, not going to parties decreases the chance of getting raped, not sticking out like a hooker, or getting drunk with others, and yadda yadda, but for the most part, rape is something that you can't escape from if it's just you being in the wrong place at the wrong time, unless you live underground and never come out ever and are superhuman and don't need water, or food to live, and are isolated, you always going to risk the chance of being raped.

I feel that I addressed the other cases of abortion that doesn't deal with rape victims well, it's something they can control for the most part, sure a rubber can break, but the chances of getting pregnant from safe sex are very low compared to unsafe sex. Even then, if we are going to do a study on this from all abortion cases, the rape ones might be the ones in first place compared to the others, so it's worth looking centering around for this debate.
(HOWEVER, I will say that yes, It's stupid to have an abortion for those reasons besides the rape scenario's) but who am I to judge someone who honestly doesn't want the baby, or ready to be a mother yet?

Now, again, i want you to address in particularly the part about the woman left in the dark, her feelings, and thoughts not considered, but just given the choice of ending the pregnancy, or continuing to a life full of unknown in which again is more so negative than positive from most stories you will find about raped victims going through with having their baby. Not just raped victims, but also unexpected pregnancies whether it's unsafe sex, or safe sex. The mother's thoughts are not considered much at all, the whole thing is pro life or pro choice with two sides fighting and one side occasionally flaming the mother, and protesting then going back to fighting with the pro choice guys.

As for the baby not having the freedom, again in a weird religious outlook, the baby is set free. I don't want this to be about religion, so I'm going to again say, this is the USA where currently abortion in some states is pro choice, or pro life. As a law abiding citizen of the US and the state you reside, you have the legal rights to have an abortion, even if those are against it, and it would seem to me, that most would be understanding of rape cases.

Also, I will follow up on the life support comparison. You mentioned the person being a vegetable, well, in the current state of thing, the baby inside the woman would be a vegetable. It needs food, water, and care to survive, and is completely 100% dependent upon the mother. Sure, the baby might not have problems at all, that's completely correct, but in case of rape-abortion cases which are the majority of why those get abortion, those babies for the majority have something wrong with them, this is more so a fact. In should be up to the mother to have the right to make that decision based on her gut feeling.

Again, I agree it's stupid for mothers who get unexpectedly pregnant and discard the baby like trash after, but it's a choice, it's the law, and the mother has that right.

Now, it would be better to string up a poll on "Abortions should be allowed to only rape victims" but here's the thing, although that would be a better agreeable ground for most and resolve the issues, the thing is you can almost never know if someone is telling the truth about rape or lying, therefore, abortions sadly have to be open to all those who want to have one.

Again, the mother is more so the one carrying the burden of all this, getting flamed at the same time as discarded like trash as well with feelings ignored while everyone goes back to arguing. Pro life is happy after the baby comes out, even tho (in rape cases) it's more of a negative thing for most cases with very few babies having a normal life and more so a negative one. However, people stop carrying when the baby gets adult age, and now must fight on his own except the military, they always want you!
Debate Round No. 3


The problem with this is it's being justified when it's an obviously wrong thing. You can ask almost anybody if murdering a random person on the side of the road is right or wrong. That person has done nothing wrong. Just a random person minding their own business. That can be compared to the innocent child. Never done anything wrong, yet not able to ever experience the joys of life because someone may feel they're not ready to take care of that child. People keep trying to justify an obviously evil thing. What abortion is is murder. Nothing less. People can argue all they want about bettering the mother or the baby, but what it comes down to is that abortion is the murdering an unborn fetus.

I would like to also point out a fallacy that you stated. You pointed out that most abortions are for rape victims. This is not the case at all. I would like to inform you that as little as 1% of abortions are rape related. The number is even less than that (> 5%) because included in that is incest victims as well. The top three reasons for having abortions would be can't afford the baby (21% of abortions), unready for responsibility (21%), and the mother is concerned with how the baby will change her life.
It's a fact that most abortions are because the mother does not want the baby.

You also argued quite a bit about how the well being of the mother is rarely taken into consent. I would like to inform you also of that fact that after having an abortion, many times mothers become depressed and face relationship problems. In some cases PTSD has been reported along with elevated alcohol and drug abuse. The event of having an abortion almost always puts more of an emotional burden on the mother than they would have had if the baby was born.


So, I'm going to make a few rebuttals against your post here, and maybe add a few others things.

"The problem with this is it's being justified when it's an obviously wrong thing. You can ask almost anybody if murdering a random person on the side of the road is right or wrong. That person has done nothing wrong. Just a random person minding their own business. That can be compared to the innocent child. Never done anything wrong, yet not able to ever experience the joys of life because someone may feel they're not ready to take care of that child. People keep trying to justify an obviously evil thing. What abortion is is murder. Nothing less. People can argue all they want about bettering the mother or the baby, but what it comes down to is that abortion is the murdering an unborn fetus."

So... To argue against this. First off, that's an extreme comparison, more so than the veggie like state comparison that I made. Secondly, who's to say killing is morally wrong? (This is an entirely different debate, nor will I debate the response back to this if given one). I will debate the right or wrong of the abortion of a child tho. Sure, the baby has done nothing wrong, it couldn't do anything wrong, no one can deny that, but like george carlin said "not every ejaculation deserves a name". I mean, are we going to restrict masturbation and impose such laws cause after all, you are killing potential children that could be created, children that could grow up and become doctors, and develop cures? I mean, we are given the free choice to make decisions. Abortion again is currently a free choice, and as for it being morally wrong, sometimes it's the right thing to do like taken a terminally ill family member off life support. AGAIN, I'm not saying every baby is going to come out a bad apple, or a genetic freak with diseases, but I would again say the chances aren't good in those type of cases.

"The definition of murder is the unlawful killing of a human being by another and the definition of human being is; a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development."

Technically, by default of that definition, you are not murdering when you go in for abortion. If that was the case, abortion would be outlawed, and illegal. I don't even think the infants themselves have brains yet (I'm unsure, but there is certain restrictions on if it's too late to get abortions, and I think they do them before the brain form, so correct me if I'm wrong). So, the fetus is essentially a potential-human being not yet developed. The fetus does not have personhood, therefore abortion certainly IS NOT MURDER (and most abortions are done before such major developments and growths).

Now, to go back to the female, she shouldn't have to be restricted and carry the burden regardless of her choice, and be forced to carry an unwanted baby. How would you feel if someone wanted you to constantly carry over 100 pounds of equipment daily or make you do something you don't want to do? The female is the least concern out of the protesters and the baby. Again, once the baby is out of the womb, and enters the world, people stop caring, and no longer give a damn. It's all on the mother to nurse him, or send him off for adoption or whatever.

By the way... Most women don't report rape and admit to rape, the percentage is a lot higher than what's given.

We shouldn't take steps back as a country, and have abortion illegal. I mean, it's always restricting the rights of the people.

That's about all I'm going to say currently for this post.
Debate Round No. 4


First off I would like to say that, even though we have differing views, I must admit that you argued in a very admiral way and brought up some great points.

I would like to start off with where you said babies don't have brains. The fact is that brains, spinal cords, heart, and other organs start development at the third week after conception. This is compared to the 23 week period allowed for legal abortions. The Spino-thelamatic pathway, the feature which allows pain is developed as early as week 20. Scientists and doctors have reported seeing infants retract and flinch at the touch of sharp objects during pre-birth surgeries. If not the aspect that the baby has a brain should support my case then the fact that the baby can feel pain should. This then leads me to my next point that involves when you justified abortion because of the baby not having personhood and not being developed. If this were the case, then why is killing infants under three years of age illegal. Infants that young after all haven't developed logic or full use of their brains yet. Or how about handicapped people. Many special needs people are the same way. If this is the logic behind abortion, then why is killing them illegal. If anything, killing the unborn can be considered worse because of the potential behind the infant and the lack thereof with a special needs individual. I am in no way saying either is more right or wrong but just making the case that both are inherently wrong.

My next argument involves your comment on making masturbation illegal. The difference there is that masturbation happens before the conception of a child. (Looking at it religiously, both are very wrong but I am looking to keep this strictly non-religious based).

I would now like to end this debate by saying that just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. This may be an extreme example but Hitler ' extermination of the Jews was legal. Just because it was legal didn't make it right. Or how about the legality of slavery in the 1800's and prior. Slavery was definately wrong but in every way legal back then. What I am saying is that just because the majority says it or someone in power says it, doesn't make it right.


Well, this has been an interesting debate. Especially since it's my first one here on this site. While my views differ from yours, I would like to address that yes, abortion is wrong in a sense, but it should be a choice as I've defended, and will finish off in this last post but before I do so, I will go over a few points that we have agreed, and most would agreed on.
A: Abortion is saddening no matter the outcome.
B: Abortions should never occur because of these cases that can be prevented (in being indecisive, having unprotected sex).
C: Not a win situation for the mother regardless of what decision she makes.

Abortion ultimately is an individual choice. Now this is a lame argument but rings true "It's my body, not yours" or just simply "mind your own business".

I brought up masturbation because at the end of the day, you are killing potential would be human beings. It's no ifs, or buts cause one lucky sperm pole out of millions will be the chosen to become a fetus. So, to me, it was only logical to bring this up. (Also, I never suggested making masturbation illegal, but more so asked, what's next if you make abortion illegal? Then masturbation?) because it's the killing of potentials. Oh, but don't forget the woman, and their three little days they have, would they be considered serial killers in the eyes of conservatives? I mean, think about it, those eggs get flushed on out of her body, is that not so?

Also, how would you go about enforcing such a law to make abortion illegal? It would cost more. It would also do more harm for the babies and cause more pain to them, as if they don't have enough pain enough through the scary abortion processes. Now, you'd have women banging themselves against the wall, and doing crazy things to their stomach to make sure the child dies, would you want that?

Yes, the Hitler extermination example was pretty extreme, as it involved something completely different at a time period. Hitler was more so a dictator with power, and killing jews wasn't necessarily legal cause it was done mostly in secrecy above all else, in fact, most nazi's were trialed for war crimes after the war cause of those reasons. The slavery period was in a completely different time (but I guess that is the more valid comparison you made out of these two).

Going back to the abortion debate, again, as I have said, a woman shouldn't be forced to carry a baby if she truly doesn't want it. Anything can happen in those nine months. If we are going to impose such laws, then I don't see why stop there, go full frontal with masturbation laws. Again, the woman would find a way to have her baby terminated which would be more painful than the legal process already is.

As for handicaps and such not having personhood, and everything, they are already out of the womb, and are special cases. They are fully human, and developed completely (although they are still growing until the age of 25 or so for most people). It's the law to not kill anyone, obviously, therefore it's illegal. A fetus is a human to be, most consider it a parasite. Family members go "yeah, I got one child, and one on the way" and they NEVER GO AND SAY " I got two children".

It would seem to me, most pro lifers are selfish, and have to have it their way like burger king or something. This ties back to minding your own business, but it's deeper than that cause instead of doing so, they are now out criticizing the woman, and not giving a damn about one single thought she has going through her head because they are so about protecting the unborn.

So, to end this debate. I just want to stress the fact that it's an individual choice and their body. Making abortion illegal would create black markets, cause more damage, and overall be a miserable experience to all the women who want to have one. Women shouldn't be modern day slaves and have to carry such burdens.

That is all.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Jerry947 2 years ago
Pro says "Sure, the baby is not given no such choice in the matter, you're right, BUT IT CANNOT MAKE THAT CHOICE EITHER."

I can't believe people get away with these type of arguments. Using Pro's logic we could bind a person up (preventing them from speaking) and rape them since they can't make the choice about whether or not they want to have sex.
Posted by Marksworth 2 years ago
Has the potential. Not every child that is born is a valued member of society. But again, that is post birth. We are discussing the going ons while it is still unborn. As long as it is unborn, it is simply a parasitic organism, in which the WOMAN should have control over. Not you, not me, not the government.

I know you're not a fan of the rape victim argument, and not even that the medical reasonings behind it. Your answer is to control what a woman does to her own body and not even give her a say in the matter. How is that morally right?
Posted by nathan_k98 2 years ago
A tapeworm that is soon to develop into the most sophisticated and intelligent creature on Earth. You'd think you'd value life more than that.
Posted by Marksworth 2 years ago
Self sustainability in regards to oxygen. Any living organism requires oxygen to breath. Before birth, the umbilical cord provides oxygen. Post birth, it is capable of (hopefully) breathing on its own. No oxygen, no life. Hence, organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense. Until born, it is not much more than a tapeworm
Posted by nathan_k98 2 years ago
I ask you then, what's different between child just before and just after birth?
Posted by Marksworth 2 years ago
Until the cord is cut during birth, the fetus/child is LITERALLY a parasite. Why would I give a flea or a tick or a heart worm the choice of life or death? I wouldnt. If you eat meat, then you are obviously OK with the concept of killing an animal...and humans are animals....Humans also have what is generally called Free Will, and American's have Freedom......

Also, if you want to ban abortions, shouldn't you also be against the Plan B pill, coat hangers, stairs, abusive know, everything that can also harm the parasite? Just saying.
No votes have been placed for this debate.