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

AAN Tour: Voluntary Abortion should be legal

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 5 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Judge Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/16/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 11,379 times Debate No: 59045
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (68)
Votes (5)





This debate is part of the Adopt-a-Noob Tournament.


Pro's contention is that Voluntary Abortion should be legal.


Voluntary Abortion:
The removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. [1][2]


permitted by law. [3]


• Round 1 is for establishing the debate, acceptance and pleasantries only.
• 8k characters max. per round
• 4 rounds
• 72 hrs
• Select Winner Voting
• Judges: Ragnar, Mikal, Blade-of-Truth, phantom, YYW, Bladerunner060, and rross.
• 2 Week Voting Period (Please don't take that long judges!)




I accept this challenge and look forward to an educational and interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 1



I thank Con for accepting the debate on this controversial topic.
I will use this round for my arguments on why "Voluntary abortion should be legal".


C1: The ability of a woman to control her body is part of her bodily rights.

This is the main argument that I'm going to present. My position is centered on the argument of bodily rights and bodily integrity. The violation of these is unethical and intrusive.
This argument alone is enough to justify the legalization of abortion.

-Bodily integrity

This is the inviolability of the physical body and it involves different rights that should be guaranteed to women. Some of these rights are related to reproductive and sexual rights.

The bodily integrity ensure total control of the woman's body and the decision to continue a pregnancy or not.

-Abortion in the bodily rights' argument

Every woman has the right to chose what to do with her body and have others respect this bodily autonomy.
Legal abortion ensures the ability of a woman to control her body which is not possible if she is forced to continue a pregnancy.

-Abortion as a reproductive right

Reproductive rights definition is:
"Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children" [1]

Safe and legal abortion is part of the reproductive rights of every woman and it's heavily related to the bodily rights.

If abortion is illegal, women would be deprived of these rights that are fundamental in a modern society.

-Beginning of life or personhood is irrelevant to the debate

The beginning of life and/or personhood is definitely an interesting topic that is as controversial as this debate, but it is not relevant because of the bodily rights' argument.

The rights should be respected independently of things like if the fetus is alive, a human being or a person.
This is important to note because this is a part of a common argument against abortion and the ability to choose and control of the woman's body.

This is easier to see and understand if we replace the fetus with a grown adult. This adult is alive, is a human being and a person but no one should be forced to donate organs or give his body to save the life of this person.
In other words women should not be forced to continue a pregnancy (donate her womb) to the fetus, even if this is alive/human/person.

For this reason the argument of life and personhood is irrelevant to the discussion.

C2: Making Abortion legal makes the procedure safer.

Abortion is a safe medical procedure when is done properly.
This can only be ensured if abortion is legal.

-Illegal abortion won't stop abortions

Women try to get abortions, even if this is illegal. For example, abortion used to be illegal in the US. Untrained "doctors" and conditions without medical standards were common characteristics of illegal abortion. Inducing own abortions were common too.

This conditions didn't stop women to get these abortions.
Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year only in the US. [2]

-Unsafety of illegal abortion

Making abortion illegal is a barrier to accessing safe abortion services and endangers women's health.
Before making abortion legal an estimate of 5000 women died each year because of unsafe abortions [3]
Illegal abortion is still the leading cause of maternal death. 47000 women die each year because of this. [4][5]

-Surgical abortion is a safe medical procedure

When abortion is practiced by a trained person, the procedure is safe with little to no risk.
It's complications are less serious than those related to giving birth. [6]


Pro has presented a compelling case for the legalization of Voluntary abortion.
The arguments were related to the bodily integrity of women and the safety of abortion in the world.

I await for Con's arguments.

Thanks. Vote PRO.




Pro presented some interesting arguments that I will be addressing at this time as well as bringing up new points. In this post I want to cover the issue of bodily rights, whether the beginning of life is really relevant, whether rape is really solved with abortion, how legality could effect abortion, and whether abortion is really a safe or good idea.

A woman's bodily rights
. Even if a woman has control over her own body, does she necessarily have that same right over the body of her baby? Her baby is a completely different person.( The baby is genetically separate from the mother, and is most definitely not just a part of her tissue.( The mother does not have the right to kill her baby included in her bodily rights because the baby is a separate entity.

The child does not have a choice. The Pro-choice argument is one-sided. Pro choice advocates support the choice of the mother, but they do not take in to account that the child has absolutely no choice or fault in the matter. It did not choose to be in the that particular mother's womb, it was placed there by some one else. The unborn baby cannot protect those rights like an adult can. So, we should not unfairly rob them of those rights.

A woman's reproductive rights. A woman can exercise her reproductive rights by remaining abstinent and avoid the whole problem, or by using readily available contraceptives. When a woman consents to have sex with a man, she is consenting to the idea of having a baby. She has exercised her right of choice, and it can only be considered responsible if she accepts the moral responsibility that comes with that decision. She does not have to kill her baby and her peace of mind in order to have her rights. ( It is false to say that abortion deprivation violates her rights.

Personhood and life are highly relevant to this debate. My opponent claims that beginning of life is irrelevant to this debate. I beg to differ. It has everything to do with it. If the baby is just a blob with no feeling and no life, abortion can be viewed as acceptable. But if the baby is a person with feelings, emotions, life, and the ability to feel pain, abortion is essentially murder. We cannot just dismiss this issue.

The issue of rape. Many Pro Choice people say that if a woman is raped, it is OK to have an abortion, but an abortion does not really eliminate the damage wreaked by a rape. "We do not erase a rape by killing a child. We do not cure a baby by taking his life. And we do not avoid all health issues by avoiding the reality of another human being. Women who have been raped must be compassionately cared for. But compassionate care does not include executing a woman's child." ( Pro's desire is to help raped women, abortion is not the answer. Caring compassionately for the woman as she struggles to defeat the odds is the better course of action. If a woman already has psychological damage from the rape, why add to it with an abortion? The people who are supposedly desiring to help the raped woman are only adding to her pain. Wounding the wounded is completely immoral.

As to the legality argument, where my opponent stated that abortions will continue and will be less safe, I have two responses.

1. When something is difficult, then people are less likely to do it. Logically, if it is illegal to have an abortion, and more dangerous, would the same number of people have abortions?
Let's look at a state in America, Oregon, that allows legal abortions and has the fewest restrictions on it. ( In this state, abortion is so easy, people feel free to be promiscuous, which brings on more problems: STDs, broken relationships, and many more unwanted pregnancies. If abortion was harder, and illegal, would people feel as encouraged to act promiscuously when they know they will need to pay the consequences? Making abortion illegal may not completely stop abortions, but it will likely deter them, and will not give a false sense of security to women.

2. Is the current system safe? Pro is assuming that the current system is safe, but he is forgetting the problems that ensue from an abortion. Abortion has many negative side effects. (I have derived the following sources from and )

1. Loss of money. The woman has to pay for the surgery.
2. Humiliating procedure. A woman's inward parts are vacuumed.
3. Health damage. The instruments used to kill the baby might permanently scar her and sterilize her.
4. Loss of her child. This may be misunderstood to be a good thing, but the metal is pulling her own flesh and blood apart and kills it with cruelty. No matter what Pro might say, this "blob" is the result of love between a man and a woman, and the woman is killing it.
5. Loss of her peace of mind. My source says: "A man who saw his wife slowly disintegrate after her abortion asks, "What kind of trade-off is that: Gain control of your body, lose control of your mind?"" ( Abortion will never go away in the mind of a mother. It will continue on and on, tearing her heart up like she let a doctor tear her baby up. Abortion is neither empowering or liberating because a woman who kills her own child is enslaved in the bondage of regret.
6. Adds to current tragedy in cases of rape
7. It takes innocent life. The baby is alive from first conception. It is not potentially alive, it IS alive.
8. Deprivation of civil rights. Unborn babies are discriminated against just because they are unborn.
9. Kills an innocent child. Pro says the mother shouldn't suffer for her own choices, but this baby has to suffer being torn apart limb from limb because of it's parent's decisions.
10. It avoids responsibility for one's actions.

The current system is already unsafe. The "safety" that is claimed is false. The negative side effects of getting an abortion are enormous.

Moving on, Pro claims that abortion is safer than child birth. The damage with abortions is under-reported, thrown together into other categories so it is harder to find, and treated in emergency rooms, not the abortion clinic, so it is never reported as abortion related. ( The result is, abortion advocates avoid telling the whole truth. Abortion is a dangerous procedure, even more than we think because of this data supression.

How can we condone abortion by legalizing it knowing full well the enormous cost to our women? A 15 year old girl might think it is okay to kill the "fetus," but she will live the rest of her life with emotional and physical damage. We know what happens to the baby. A healthy pregnancy is artificially interrupted by the surgical team that reaches in with sharp metal tools that cut the baby into pieces and then vacuum its parts out of the womb, all so that her mother can avoid an "inconvenience." I urge you to vote Con, to discourage such cruelty.

Debate Round No. 2



I thank Con for her rebuttals.
I will present now rebuttals for her rebuttals and show the reasons voluntary abortion should be legal.


1. The bodily rights' and reproductive rights

Con starts asking for the bodily rights of the woman's "baby", and claims that they should be respected because they are 2 different persons.

But the bodily rights or the fetus are not being affected. Remember that abortion doesn't mean "killing because it's in the woman's property", but using the woman's right to not donate her womb for 9 months.

In other words, the only rights affected are the woman's bodily rights.

My opponent then calls the pro-choice argument "one sided". This is totally false. Thanks to the bodily rights' argument we can see that having abortion as an option gives equality in the rights. We are not considering the fetus property, we are only showing that the fetus doesn't have the right to use the woman's body, just like no person has the right to use the woman's body.

Con then attacks the reproductive rights argument. She claims that the consent to sex means consent to pregnancy, but this is not true. And even if the woman uses contraceptives, she may still get pregnant.
Abortion deprivation violates her rights because if she gets pregnant, and doesn't consent the pregnancy, the fetus would be using her body without her consent.

2. Personhood and life are not relevant to this debate

My opponent doesn't accept that personhood and life are not relevant to the debate because she was not able to understand the argument. It being a person/alive doesn't affect the argument. You can replace the fetus with an adult human being and the bodily rights of the woman would be affected.

Now, Con claims that if the "baby" is just a blob with no feeling and no life, then abortion is acceptable, but if it's a person with feelings and alive and the ability to feel pain, then abortion is essentially murder.
I disagree here. Abortion is defined as the termination of the pregnancy, not the killing of the fetus. So independently of the status of the fetus, abortion is not murder.
And this is easier to see with example of abortions that result on the baby being alive. Caesarean section is a form of late term abortion because it terminates the pregnancy and the baby most of the times lives.
It's late term because it is practiced when the fetus is viable.

3. The issue of rape

My opponents attacks an argument I did not present. She claims that abortion is not a solution to rape because it doesn't "erase the rape".
But abortion was never intended to be a solution to rape. Abortion would be a solution to a pregnancy without consent. It's part of her rights that she should be able to defend.

Then Con claims "psychological damage" caused by abortion. The source she gives also make that claim but with no substantial evidence of it. But it doesn't matter because it is a myth.
The American Psychological Association(APA) has several studies about the relation between mental health and abortion [1][2][3][4]. All reach the conclusion that "The best scientific evidence published indicates that among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy, the relative risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion or deliver that pregnancy,"

4. Safety of abortions

1. Con tries to attack the fact that "abortions will not stop because of it being illegal".
She claims that there will be more abortions if abortion is legal. I never claimed that there will be the same amount or more abortions if it was illegal, I just said that abortions will not stop but I still consider Con's evidence insufficient. The chart shows the amount of abortions related to restrictions in different states. The problem lies in the fact that those are "official" and legal abortions only. It doesn't show the complete amount of abortions that are still a considerable amount.
I gave evidence that there is still a considerable amount of abortions in parts of the world where it is still illegal. [5]

Then Con claims that the legal abortion will cause "STDs, broken relationships, and many more unwanted pregnancies" which is a ridiculous claim.
Legal abortion may mean more abortions but it doesn't mean more sex. Sadly, the source of Con is biased and unreliable.

Con ends implying that legal abortions give a false sense of security to woman, but this is false. Abortions are actually secure and I presented evidence for that in my last round and also in this round.

2. Here Con attacks the safety of "the system". I assume she is referring to the safe of abortion.
She gives some reasons:

a. Loss of money: Even though is not related to safety, it is not a problem at all compared to any other surgery and actions that defend the human rights of the people.

b. Humiliating procedure: This claim is baseless and has no evidence to be true.

c. Health damage: This is another baseless claim. I have provided evidence that shows that there are less risk of complications in abortion than in pregnancy. It is a safe medical procedure.

d. Loss of her child: Con here implies that the fetus is wanted and the result of love between man and woman.

e. Loss of her peace of mind: I already showed evidence that this doesn't happen. Usually mental health problems after abortion are more related to problems before abortions (like rape) than abortion itself. [6]

f. Adds to current tragedy in cases of rape: Baseless claim. It begs the question as it implies what it is supposed to prove.

g. It takes innocent life: Here it is the first time Con claims the fetus to be alive SINCE CONCEPTION. And although the life of the fetus is irrelevant to the debate, "when does life start?" is a question without an exact answer in science.
That and the fact that abortion is not murder makes this a baseless claim.

h. Deprivation of civil rights: No rights are affected by abortion. First, claiming the fetus is a person without any evidence of it is baseless. Second, even if it was a person, the civil rights of this fetus/person would not be affected as already explained in my last 2 rounds.

i. Kills an innocent child: I think already 3 or 4 of Con's reasons are just this but paraphrased. Abortion is not murder. Abortion is the termination of the pregnancy. The fact that the fetus dies is just a fact of nature. It is not able to survive without the woman.

j. It avoids responsibility for one's action. No it doesn't. For starters, Con is implying that being pregnancy is necessary because of the woman's actions. Then it also implies that consent to sex means consent to pregnancy. And last it forgets that abortions is a way of taking responsibility of the actions the woman made or were made against her will.

Con then tries to attack the argument that "abortion is safer than child birth". Con claims that the damage of abortions is under reported.

She uses here a totally biased and offensive source, a site that calls those who defend the right to choose of a woman, "child disposal apologist". I ask and recommend Con not to use similar sites again. The site claims a lot of things but no evidence is found, only a broken link from a paper I'm not able to read or at least know the name of. The site claims that 50% of complications cause by abortions are not reported.


Con was not able to rebut the bodily rights' argument properly and stands as my main argument for the legalization of abortion.
Legal and safe abortion is necessary to ensure the rights of a lot of women around the world.

Thanks, Vote PRO.




I will present more about the problems with abortion and the reasons why it should not be legal by responding to Pro’s claims.

Bodily rights.

My opponent claims that this is about a woman's right not to donate her womb. But, as I established previously, whenever a woman consents to have sex with someone, she is consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. It is an occupational hazard. This is why I have chosen not to engage in that type of behavior until after I marry.

My opponent then says that the baby has no right over the woman's body. We all know that the baby did not get there on its own and did not choose to be in the womb, the choice was made by the parents. An infant should not be held responsible for a decision she has no control over.

Reproductive rights.

We have already covered this issue before. Except in cases of rape, a woman consenting to the possibility. Whether she uses contraceptives or other methods, she is still exposing herself to that danger. A woman should not be surprised if a baby is the result of a physical union. The choice has been made.


Pro stated "Abortion is defined as the termination of the pregnancy, not the killing of the fetus" I would like to contest this with a legal definition. "Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by various methods, including medical surgery, before the fetus is able to sustain independent life." ( This removal will certainly result in the death of the infant. But the baby is not just removed, it is torn apart. “[The doctor] has to dismember the foetus inside the uterus and pull it out, bit by bit…Even then, some body parts are too large to come out intact.” ( “Termination” glosses over what really happens.

Seeing as even a natural birth terminates a pregnancy, by Pro’s definition every single person alive today, even you, was aborted. This definition is too broad and absurd. My definition is more specific, and more realistic.

Pro wants to replace the infant with a grown adult to demonstrate the injustice of the situation. But this analogy is flawed. An adult has free choice where he lives and should pay rent. The baby has no choice.


Rape often provides the default justification for abortion. Pregnancy without consent is very similar to rape. But, abortions motivated by nonconsensual sex are rare. As stated previously, pregnancy is a risk you are willingly consenting to in most cases. You can't have all the "fun" without the responsibility.

My rights end where you're rights begin. For example, if there was a phone that was free, I could rightly take it. But if I took your phone, I would be stealing. As a living being, the baby has the right to live, and that should be respected. In this case, the woman’s rights are in conflict with the baby’s, and if her rights deprive the baby of his rights, it has just crossed the line. Babies are deprived of their rights on the sole basis that they are unborn. It doesn’t matter if the woman did not consent to pregnancy, she has no right to abort because it interferes with the baby’s rights.

Psychological damage.

Abortion does have many negative side effects. "Women who aborted have a 55% higher risk of mental health problems compared to women with an ‘unplanned’ pregnancy who gave birth." ( Also: "it was found that women who had an induced abortion had a five times higher rate of admission to hospital for psychiatric reasons in the following three months than women who had not undergone induced abortion." (
This problem is real, not a myth.

1. Illegal Abortions continuing.

If theft is prevalent in an area, and people are getting hurt, is the correct course of action to legalize theft? Whether or not they will do it anyway must not be the reason we legalize it. Also, it is still safer to keep abortions illegal because of the long-term consequences. "Countries where abortion is illegal, such as Ireland, routinely have the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world, while areas with liberal abortion laws such as South Africa top the maternal mortality charts." ( We are protecting women from long-term problems by keeping abortions illegal.

2. Safety.

a. Money. Giving a surgery to fuse a cleft pallet is defending human rights, but giving a surgery to kill a baby is violating human rights. The UN says "Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings" ( A baby has the inherent right to live which is violated by abortion.

b. Procedure. In an abortion, instruments are put deep into the woman's uterus to cut apart the baby and to vacuum out the parts. (

c. Health damage. The womb is a delicate environment, and is easily nicked and scratched, causing permanent damage, and possible sterility. (

d. Loss of her child. As stated earlier, even if the child is not wanted, the mother feels the void it would have filled.

e. Loss of her peace of mind. Previously addressed.

f. Adding to tragedy. Women have negative emotional reactions to abortion which add to the emotional pain of a raped woman.

g. Innocent life. The scientific definition of alive is: "Having life, in opposition to dead; living; being in a state in which the organs perform their functions." ( A baby's heartbeat begins in the 5th week during the first trimester. ( The baby is alive.

h. Civil Rights. "Personhood is the cultural and legal recognition of the equal and unalienable rights of human beings." The baby is a human, because both of the parents are human. The baby isn't a kitten, but a human who has personhood, and the right to life.

i. Kills Child. If a pregnancy is terminated by the death of the infant, it is murder.

j. Avoiding responsibility. Is it truly responsible to "get rid of the problem" by abortion? Woman should accept the risk and make the decision counting the cost. The baby should not be forced to accept all responsibility for his mother’s choices.

Abortion is still more dangerous than child-birth, because of the long-term problems. "Microbiologist and bioethics commentator Gerard Nadal [said the] data fails to account for the physical damage often sustained by women during abortions, including damage to reproductive organs that has been strongly linked to subsequent pregnancy complications or even sterility. Meanwhile, he said, abortion’s link to increased risk of breast cancer, and childbirth’s protective effect against cancer, is ignored." (

Under-reported damage. "Several pro-life doctors say that, because it fails to include the long-term adverse effects of abortions, the…claim that abortion’s mortality rate is lower misrepresents the overall effects of abortion on women versus bringing a child to term.” ( The data is inconvenient and seldomly reported.

Abortion damages the mother and damages the child. These actions have such serious consequences. You know the problems with abortion, and I ask you to side with justice and responsibility and vote for Con.

Debate Round No. 3



I thank my opponent for her rebuttals.
I wish her good luck in this last round and now I will present my rebuttals and show that voluntary abortion should be legal.


1. Bodily rights

Here Con still claims that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy but she doesn't give any reason for it.
Consent to sex is NOT consent to pregnancy. Human being is one of the several animal species that have sex for pleasure and not reproduction only. Dolphins and Bonobos do it also, and it's even interesting to note that scientist believe that this behavior makes Bonobos a really peaceful species compared to chimpanzees.

Claiming that consent to sex means consent to pregnancy is like saying that consent to sex means consent to STD. Sure, you could have STD even if you don't want it, and I really don't think you would want it, but the same happens with pregnancy. You could get one even if you didn't want to or didn't planned it. And you can be very secure, the chances will be low, but it's still possible.

2. Reproductive rights

Again, the Con's rebuttal is consent to pregnancy.
She says that except in cases of rape, the woman consents the sexual act, which is true, but again, it doesn't mean consent to pregnancy.

3. Personhood is still irrelevant

Here Con attacks the definition of abortion with a legal definition from an specific country, United States. I don't see any good reason to use that definition considering that she already accepted a definition at the start of the debate.

She also mentions that the doctors have to kill the fetus. This is true for a lot of abortions, but I really don't understand the objection. Is Con suggesting that the doctor should use a C-section to remove the fetus and place it there so it can slowly die?
The fact that the fetus dies is a fact of nature. And talking about C-sections, and I already mentioned this in my last round, it is a form of late term abortion that doesn't kill the fetus.

Con then claims that birth also terminates pregnancy, but remember that the resolution is "voluntary abortions". Maybe it would be better "Premature termination of a pregnancy", but there is no use because I don't see any reason for Con to try to illegalize births.

Now to end this issue, the reason the legislation of US consider abortion as just "early term abortions" is because that's exactly what their laws is about. And even if we accepted the definition of Con, that would not change the fact that abortion is not murder. Abortion is not about killing the fetus. Con can try to convince people that the fetuses should not be killed, make c-sections to women, and let them die naturally, those would still be abortions, but I don't think she will go anywhere with that. Abortion is not murder.

Con then claims that the analogy (replacing the fetus with an adult) is flawed because an adult has free choice where he lives and should pay rent.
Ok, Con can replace it with a 1 year baby or 2 years baby. It will be the same. Sure, now there is parental responsibility, but that will not change the fact that no baby/person/adult/human being should force others to donate.

Again, sure, analogies are not perfect, for that reason I ask Con to address the bodily rights' argument itself instead. The analogies are for easy understanding.

4. Rape

Here Con mentions consent again. She claims that pregnancy without consent is very similar to rape, which is false.
And now she mentions responsibility too. I already answered to this in her safety arguments against abortion. Having an abortion is taking responsibility for the situation a woman is in. And there are no parental responsibility because abortion is a way to abdicate parental rights.

In her next paragraph, Con claims that there are a conflict of rights between the fetus and the woman.
This is implying that the fetus should have all the rights, which I don't agree but I'm fine with because of the bodily righs' argument. If fetus is considered to have all the rights of a person, then it's true, there is a conflict with rights. But the rights that are not being respected are not the fetus rights, but the woman's rights. This is the whole idea of the bodily rights' argument.

Again, Con was not able to prove that abortion is murder. She tried to play with semantics and US law but went nowhere. She didn't rebut the bodily righs' argument correctly either. She addressed consent several times but with no proof or reasons to back her claims up.

5. Psychological damage is still a myth

Abortion does not have negative side effects.
Con is not able to provide reliable sources. She has to use sites that claims the same things she is claiming, but with no real sources. The site Con provided talks about a paper that doesn't seem to exist.

I provided sources from the American Psychological Association with SEVERAL studies about the issue. Con here is just repeating the myths.
And I can also provide the names of studies related to abortion that reach the same conclusion, anyone can buy them and read them. I just posted those from the APA because they were free.

6. Safety of abortions

-Illegal abortions continuing

I never claimed that abortions should be legal because they were not going to stop. It was a part of the safety reasons and it was necessary because of the comparison between safety of abortion being illegal and legal.
And her comparison with theft fails. She is implying that abortion is murder and as bad a theft.
Abortion is not something wrong per se.

Con continues to claim the long term consequences without evidence and provide similar sites with similar claims.


a. Money. She drops the original argument and attacks the rights. Already addressed

b. Procedure. What's not been proved is that it's humiliating.

c. Health damage. I stopped reading that site after the "Almost 100% of women regret abortions". Already addressed.

j. Avoiding responsibility. Abortion is not murder. Already addressed.

The rest arguments were already addressed and rebutted.

  • Pro presented a compelling case for the legalization of abortion.
  • Con was not able to rebut any of the arguments of Pro with reliable studies or reasons.
  • Voluntary abortion is necessary to ensure the woman's bodily rights and reproductive rights.
  • The rights of a fetus, implying that it's a person with all the rights, are not being affected by the abortion.
  • Giving the fetus the right to live AND the right to use the woman's body is giving the fetus privileged rights which is not moral in any way


No sources were necessary.



I will now finish this debate with an attempt to demonstrate why it is not wise policy to legalize abortion.

1. Bodily rights.

The reason why consent to sex is consent to pregnancy is a large part of it is the sperm cells joining the egg cells, resulting in a baby. A sperm does not join a woman's egg without the woman's cooperation in most cases. The woman knows the consequence of having a baby, and has made her decision.

Pro tries to make an analogy that equates pregnancy with STD. He is basically saying that all sex equals promiscuous sex. Pregnancy is a natural consequence even if you remained chaste for all of your life and then got married. STD is a consequence that comes after promiscuous sex.

2. Reproductive rights.

Consent explained previously.

3. Personhood.

I never accepted the definition Pro cited. His definition was so broad that everyone who is alive was aborted. It is invalid, and unusual. So I gave another. Here’s one from medicine: "The removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in, or caused by its death." (

Con is suggesting that we keep abortion illegal because it is morally wrong to kill the child. Infanticide is illegal. Abortion is infanticide. Therefore, abortion should be illegal. We must be consistent.

As to the C-section argument, I was born by C-section. But this argument is a red-herring argument because distracts from the point that babies are daily being killed by the very person who is supposed to nurture them. Only 33% of births in America are C-sections, and the reasons why they are so high has nothing to do with abortion or birth complications, but with a lack of information. (

Pro says that the baby's death is a fact of nature. But it is not. During an abortion,“[The doctor] has to dismember the foetus inside the uterus and pull it out, bit by bit. … Even then, some body parts are too large to come out intact…[which] are the skull and then the spine and pelvis, and … they are crushed...” (

A processer of the bodies of aborted babies, says, “Pulled out 2 well formed arms and then the torso, headless. The head was at the bottom of the container, when I pulled it, he had this expression of such utter horror,” ( The body was a baby, and the head showed that the baby felt the pain of abortion. If we found an adult body in such a condition, we would immediately think it was a murder.

The baby is alive at the age it is aborted. A doctor observed, "I think it's totally barbaric that a 24-week foetus will be aborted on one floor of a hospital and in the intensive care unit they'll be trying to save the life of another one." ( An aborted baby is a “preemie” that wasn’t lucky enough to have a mother that cared.

I'm not trying to illegalize births, but the killing of babies.

Pro claims abortion is not about killing the baby. Then why is the most publicized reason for an abortion a girl who can't raise a baby? What is abortion about then? How often do people abort with a C-section? How often does the baby survive an abortion purposely? Abortion is murder because it is the intentional killing of a human being.

Pro never actually proved that abortion is not murder. He just asserted it. I have provided evidence and examples demonstrating just how horrific abortion is.

Pro says to replace the baby with a two year old. Think of that two year old getting its arms, legs and head ripped off its torso. Anyone who did that would probably get a life sentence.

I addressed the bodily rights argument.

4. Rape.

Consent was addressed. It is not responsible to kill the baby because the mother is trampling on the baby's rights.

The baby doesn’t have all the rights, but it is wrong to ignore the rights it does have. Both have rights which should be respected. We are trampling over the baby's rights, and because it can’t protect them, it is assumed it has none. The baby has all the rights of a person, because it IS a person. Pro agreed with me that those rights are in conflict.

I already addressed whether abortion is murder.

5. Psychological damage.

I went to the APA (pro's source) to see exactly what it said. Their study is a compilation of several studies, and it says "None of the literature reviewed adequately addressed the prevalence of mental health problems among women in the United States who have had an abortion." So, we can’t draw accurate conclusions off of this evidence. And another study states "At least one-third of the respondents have experienced psychological side effects. Depression, worrying about not being able to conceive again and abnormal eating behaviors … Decreased self-esteem, nightmare, guilt, and regret… Psychological consequences of abortion have considerably been neglected." (

6. Safety.


Pro is backed off from his original point that illegal abortions are more dangerous and we should legalize it so it is safer. Since he didn't address my point that it is not a good reason, it stands. Abortion is wrong because it kills a baby. Pro did not directly respond to my point about long-term problems, and therefore, it stands.


a. Money. Why spend money to violate human rights?

b. Procedure. It is humiliating to have a stranger fishing around in your private area.

c. Health Damage. Previously addressed.

d. Loss of Child. Dropped by Pro.

e. Loss of peace. Dropped by Pro.

f. Adding to tragedy. Dropped by Pro.

g. Innocent life. Dropped by Pro.

h. Civil Rights. Dropped by Pro.

i. Killing Child. Dropped by Pro.

j. Avoiding responsibility. Previously addressed.

He decided not to respond to my point that abortions are more dangerous than child birth, and therefore it still stands.


Cost/Benefit analysis of abortion.

Costs. I've mentioned how abortion is killing a child, it damages the mother physically and emotionally, and violates civil and human rights.

"Benefits." The mother is not forced to carry and raise a child.

The cost surpasses the benefit. The relief is temporary; the damage is permanent.

Over this debate, Pro has ignored the rights of the baby, claimed that the woman has all the rights, denies that the baby is alive and human, claims that legalizing abortion will make things safer, claims that killing your child is responsible, and claims that abortion does not always end in death. He avoided several of my points and dropped important arguments. Silence is consent.

I have tried to show you the horrible things we are doing, and the humanity of the babies and their brutal daily murder.

We are depriving the next generation of their rights, while at the same time we say we value human rights. We murder unborn babies when we have the technology that could save them. We kill babies while we oppose the death penalty. We discriminate against babies because they are unborn, while we proclaim equality. We agree with torturing a child by tearing it apart, but spit upon people that abuse their kids. Our hypocrisy is astounding! We excuse it in our minds by saying that they aren't really people. But they are humans, and as humans, they have rights that should be taken into account. Please vote Con and make such actions illegal and restore our credibility as humans.

Thank you so much for taking time to vote on this debate. We both greatly appreciate it.

Debate Round No. 4
68 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar 7 years ago
Once again: "If not just trolling, open a debate challenge to defend your opinions. Assuming they are worth defending."

Interestingly enough Baby has completely dominated the Weekly Stupid (even while it's run by a pro-lifer):
Posted by StopBabyKilling 7 years ago
The retort "The baby did not see the Bride and Groom..." is unclear. Clearly baby did not. So what follows?. It does not mean there was no premarital sex, that there was or was not a shotgun marriage, and has no bearing on the source citations, the statistics they contain, or my previous observations, or whether baby killing should be legal.

No point was made by the retort.
Posted by bladerunner060 7 years ago
Simply asserting that you did not commit a fallacy, SBK, does not mean you did not commit one. Actually address the fallacies that have been pointed out to you, and explain how you don't think they're fallacies. Otherwise you're just trying to argue via the "nu-uh" approach.
Posted by StopBabyKilling 7 years ago
There are no logical fallacies in my comments. There are fallacies in your understanding of comments and your rationalizations for baby killing.

Your last comment is gibberish and I have started debates, in this site and elsewhere. Judges here seem to be of younger and academic variety, liberally biased and ignorant of the facts and history, but debating is fun, even if only to see how totally whacked out and naive people can be.
Posted by Ragnar 7 years ago
The first two sections were related to each other, pointing out a clear logical fallacy you committed.

The second was pointing out your debate record (at the time zero), which in no way suggested you put your money where your mouth is.

Logical fallacies seem to be your biggest area of improvement needed. The following link gives short descriptions of many of them:
There are plenty more, for example, if I said my opinion is true and backed by a source, but the source basically states 1 out of 3 times I'm wrong, it would be:
Posted by StopBabyKilling 7 years ago
I did not understand previous comment? Please enlighten me.
Posted by Ragnar 7 years ago
Denying the Antecedent fallacy.
If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.

Baby did not see the Bride and Groom having premarital sex, therefore it's impossible for them to have.

If not just trolling, open a debate challenge to defend your opinions. Assuming they are worth defending.
Posted by StopBabyKilling 7 years ago
Referenced study can be found in Special ,Report #117, The Heritage Foundation, by Robert Rector, 5 Sep 2013.
Posted by StopBabyKilling 7 years ago
The opinion of one San Francisco Observer is opposed by two other opinions the the same source - basically, "It's your baby, tough" - and is not supported by the data. Look at the more complete study: "Marriage: America's Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty". The increase in unwed births varies with economic strata, race, education, and other variables, as does the likelihood of people demanding or agreeing to shotgun marriages. The moral judgement that a man should marry the woman belongs to a narrow strata of WASP and religious society.

Moreover, I was alive, of rational age, and observant during the period in question, and found that overall shotgun marriages occurred but were so rare as to have little impact on the huge swing in the rate of unwed or teen births.

Regardless of the unwed, teenage, economic, shotgun, or other factors, killing a baby in the womb is terribly wrong, as is hunting down a ten-year-old and killing her with a shotgun.
Posted by bladerunner060 7 years ago
SBK, your first source specifically says that the reason for the increase in OOW births was:

"Until the early 1970s, shotgun marriage was the norm in premarital sexual relations. The custom was succinctly stated by one San Francisco resident in the late 1960s: "If a girl gets pregnant you married her. There wasn't no choice. So I married her."

Which is the opposite of your claim, that they refrained from sex until they were marreid--did you even read it before you posted it?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by rross 7 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: This was a great debate to read and interesting. My vote's not going to make any difference, but I just wanted to say to Con how much I liked her style of argument. She came across as sincere, clear and convincing in terms of what she said. The only thing is that the resolution states that abortion should be LEGAL, not that it is moral, which is a different question entirely. Next time, make sure you get the resolution you want to argue. That seems to be particularly important for abortion debates. Otherwise, you needed to make a much stronger connection between what's moral and what's legal. Especially in relation to a woman's (moral or legal) responsibility for the baby/foetus. Because Con argued almost entirely in terms of morality rather than legality, it was an easy win for Pro.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 7 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: In regards to conduct and spelling, both were good. Pro wins on arguments and sources. In regards to arguments, Con wasn't able to overcome the bodily rights/reproductive rights cases, I do not believe rape is a viable counter arguments because as Pro showed not every case of consensual sex means consensual pregnancy. Con needed to show how to two go hand-in-hand, especially in this modern society and failed to do so. The personhood argument was tiring, Con continually tried shifting the definition to her advantage and I did not see anywhere where she failed to accept it aside from her admission of doing so in the last round. Con justifies her point by saying it is killing a baby - but fails to show how that which is forming in the womb is a baby and not a fetus or some other thing like a zygote for instance. Ultimately, I feel that Con considers a baby's rights as more important than the mothers yet failed to convince me that it is. Sources were also stronger from Pro. Great debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 7 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 7 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Not weighting arguments due to bias (I predictably found pro's more convincing). S&G: both did fine. Conduct (irrelevant once S&G were tied) : near the end con started misbehaving, but overall close enough to a tie. SOURCES (the deciding factor): Even when the flaws to cons sources were pointed out, con refused to either defend them, or find better sources. Pro used a variety of sources, and showed why they are of value. Con did not even properly defend the existence of a report she claims existed.
Vote Placed by Anonymous 7 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Equal burden. PRO: Bodily rights was well articulated at first, but both sides fumbled it after the second round, reproductive rights followed suit, Personhood argument goes to pro, as does rape and the psychological damage argument. Safety does as well. CON had a lot of difficulty in most rebuttals, especially re: safety. No clear standard for evaluation. Cost benefit analysis came up short. PRO was better. If either side wants to go over this with me, feel free, but outcome here was pretty clear.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.