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

Abortion (Give me the best of the best)

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
weorweotnp has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/25/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 903 times Debate No: 94988
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)




Look, before I get into my argument I'd like to start by prefacing it with some terms. I want the best single spokesperson the topic of abortion has to offer to come forward and debate with me. I'm all for free expression of ideas and would love some verbal sparring.

Let's begin.

The argument for abortion is simple. If a woman becomes pregnant accidentally, she shouldn't be forced to become a mother at a young age, and the easiest and most painless solution (at least for the mother) is to go to Planned Parenthood and have that child's head cut open and its brains sucked into a sink. However, it really doesn't take the words of Pope Francis to label killing a child for your own convenience as the absolute nature of evil.

It's an emotional argument to say those who want abortion to be made illegal are those who want to force women to become teenage mothers. I can promise you, as a child born to a teen mother, I'm glad she wasn't forced to keep me, I'm glad I was put up for adoption, and I certainly don't feel I was better served to be killed. If I ever do want to end my life however, the decision will come down to me and my own sovereign mind, not that of anyone else. I myself do not want irresponsible 16 year old mothers raising the next generation of children, nowhere in that is infanticide the solution.

At the close of my beginning argument, I just want to talk about the myth of women's body being infringed upon. It's not about what gets done to a women's vagina, as many people use that as a common euphemism. The child will come out of there eventually, whether dead or alive. The woman's body is rather unchanged in birth versus abortion, because the woman is not deciding the fate of her own body, she is deciding on the life or death of a sovereign entity that was brought into the world on no fault of its own.

I'd love to see where we go with this, good luck!


You state as an important and compelling part of your argument the fact you are the child of a teenage mother and are glad you were born. And you are glad the woman who gave birth to you was willing to give you up for adoption. So the experience has worked out for you and we'll assume it has for your biological mother.

Now lets go back to before the time your teenage mother decided not to have an abortion and instead to place you for adoption. Back to the time when she choose to open her legs. I will assume she did so without the intent of becoming pregnant. But she did and while it may not have been her intent she became pregnant and as a result conceived you. That was a choice she made. So did your biological father make a choice-- a choice which resulted in you. But it is a choice that didn't have to be made by either of them. Had it not been made there would be no you.

Now lets take a look at the history of sexual intercourse and child bearing. What stands out are two things. The culture didn't think much of sex and it needed lots of babies. Of course you can't have the babies without the sex. So to solve this dilemma the institution of marriage was created. Sex outside of marriage was strictly forbidden. In the past your teenage mother after she gave birth to you would have been taken to the town square, stripped to the waist, and publicly flogged for her moral indiscretions.
But within a marriage women were expected to open their legs as earlier and often as could be done. The purpose every time had to be to have a baby. The problem wasn't babies being killed off by abortion-- no one really cared about abortion. It was babies being killed by bugs by disease. Even in developed countries prior to the discovery of vaccines most children didn't survive the first 5 years and many dies in infancy. So the purpose of a woman in marriage was to have lots of children

And as for abortion itself it is highly ironic considering all the other history that abortion itself wasn't specifically banned until the mid to late 19th century and the reasons for it had almost nothing to do with the fetus other than it was affected. The reason was men specifically medical doctors trying to eliminate competition in the care of pregnant women from competing disciplines which were dominated by female practitioners. It was these female practitioners who performed most the abortions.

While abortion itself was not specifically banned it was a crime punishable by death for a woman to conceal a pregnancy

The main point of this is to convey it is all about regulating female sexuality and the only concern about babies is having an adequate supply of them
Debate Round No. 1


I do very much appreciate your civility. It's a complicated issue and the controversy tends to cloud the actual issues.

Now, you do have me greatly misunderstood. By no means is making abortion illegal any legislation on female sexuality. I myself believe that a woman can have as much responsible or irresponsible sex as she wants, its neither my place nor that of anyone else to decide when a woman has sex, or who it is with. But it is absolutely wrong and unethical to make a defenseless child responsible for the actions of those who conceived it. Have as much sex as you want, but if you get pregnant, you don't get to kill the child. That is legislation on killing a defenseless child, no one is stopping women from having sex. And by the way, if less women are having irresponsible sex because they can't conveniently abort it, by no means is that a bad thing.

In regards to your argument saying that the only thing that matters is the number of babies, which I assume means reference to overpopulation, the only way you fix that is legislating sexuality, which you accused me of, as well as killing people who are presently living, abortions in the United Sates certainly aren't nearly enough to fix population. Abortion as a justification for population control is only a stepping stone to killing those who already living, and that is indefensible.


Actually abortion has never been seriously advocated as a means for population control except in China. There are better ways to achieve such a goal. These include things like sexuality education and better access to contraceptives. Of course anti abortionists also oppose contraceptives because they can't tell the difference between them and abortions. As for opposing sexuality education the motivation is to control women's lives by keeping them ignorant about sex. By this reasoning women won't know what their vagina are for and as a result won't have sex. Which means fewer abortions.

It is only after women are married are they allowed to know about sex not because it is good, at least not for the woman, but that it is necessary for producing babies and propagating the species. Historically before there were mass immunizations available and the discovery of antibiotics women (who had to be married) were expected to bear multiple children often a dozen or more with the implicit understanding most wouldn't survive past the first few years of childhood. High birth rates are still true in poor countries where infant mortality rates are high

We know what reduces birth rates and the need for as many babies as possible. Economic development and improvement education as well as the dismantling of certain traditions which enforce the sexual ignorance, exploitation, coercion, and control of women

Speaking or economic development the primary impetus for banning most abortions in the 19th and early 20th century was to force women out of the reproductive health field with the exception of nursing. This included not only abortions which were mostly performed by women but services given to a woman for the birth itself. Theses were done by both male and female providers but the men wanted the field to themselves and since they didn't do abortions getting rid of the women who did them was all to the better.

In this discussion we have been focusing on having babies within a marriage.. In my next argument I will discuss ways women are made to stay within unhealthy marriages and how abortion bans/restrictions are part of a broad range of insidiously coercive ways to punish women for having sex outside to the narrow marital exception and this includes non-consensual sex which the male perpetrates
Debate Round No. 2


I'm struggling to see your argument this round. So I will use this time to reaffirm that of my own. My argument is that of abortion across the board. A defenseless child should not be held responsible for the actions of those who created it, that is immoral. A mother shouldn't have to keep the child, they should be able to put it up for adoption, but there are no circumstances where killing the child is justifiable. As you have previously stated, abortion as a means of population control is unnecessary, so the only impetus then for an abortion seems to be for cases of unplanned pregnancy, or more simply put, abortion for convenience. This is immoral, flat out. You don't get to kill something for your convenience, it is not your job to decide if something lives or it dies, just as no one can decide morally if either you or I can live or die.


Previously I talked about the punitive impact anti choice policies and practices have on married women. In this segment I will focus on how abortion bans are only part of a punitive and coercive approach toward unmarried women who find themselves pregnant and particularly young married women.

What it comes down to is punishing women who get pregnant outside the boundaries of marriage. Allowing abortion would permit such 'immoral' women to escape punishment. Such punishment is more subtle and insidious than it was in the past. In the old days your biological mother, a few days after giving birth, would be standing in the village square naked from the waist up and screaming in pain as each of a dozen lashes were laid across her back.

Now your biological mother if we your back in the old days could have avoided the flogging if she were able to hide your birth. There was one way of doing this without killing the baby and disposing of the body. Which was to turn the baby over to what your called baby farmers.. The baby farmers would then sell the babies on the black market. Some of these baby farmers were individuals providing a service to desperate girls with unwanted pregnancies. Others were parts of organized crime syndicates who trafficked in human flesh.

Lets bring it to today. We will see there is a parallel to the baby farming of the past. Something which I will get to later. For now we will address the subtle and insidious punishments imposed on pregnant unmarried women. By the way there are still parts of the world where the more harsh punishments are still imposed on unmarried women who get pregnant and for doing what results in pregnancy but here we will just talk about the more 'civilized' world.

Use as our example a single 16 year old woman. Lets do this chronologically and list what the hardcore anti choice contingent would do to demonstrate their coercive and punitive attitude towards her

1. They would deny to her sexuality education which would enable her to make informed choices about whether or not to have sex and if she choose to have sex to be able to do so safely

2. They would deny her access to contraceptives which would prevent unwanted pregnancies. And even worse they would deny her access to emergency contraceptives which would prevent pregnancy in the case of rape.

3. They would have it so she wasn't vaccinated against certain types of cancer. A very clear indicator of the intent to punish women for having sex outside of marriage and especially at an early age.

4. When the woman finds herself pregnant; it does not matter how she got pregnant they would deny her an abortion. Lets go on to the next step

5. Ostensibly the woman would have two choices. One would be to keep the baby and raised it herself. Or she could give the baby up for adoption. But in reality they would give her only one choice unless she was willing to marry. Only if she married could she keep her baby.

6. How do they enforce a practice of compulsory marriage? Simple. One way is to deny to the single mother direct or indirect financial assistance. Thereby forcing her to go to work or depend on someone else such as a husband to support her and her baby.

7. Going to work isn't really an option for the woman either as the opponents of abortion whose real motivation is not the baby but to control the lives of women. What they do is to deny such a woman access to safe and affordable day care which would allow her to support herself and her baby.

So there are two both rather coercive options left; especially when these aren't the choices the woman really wants to make. One is to give the baby up for adoption. The second is to marry preferably the baby's father.

8. Taking a look at the marriage option we must note opponents of abortion have also opposed the creation and operation of shelters and services for abused and battered women because to quote one 'such shelters would encourage women to leave their husbands' So what they would do here is compel a woman to marry or stay with an abusive man

9. As for the adoption option-- this is an industry which is and has been riddled with corruption from the baby farmers of the past to the sex traffickers and suppliers of international pedophile rings of today. Underlying the exploitation of women and their babies is greed.

I mentioned earlier if a woman such as your biological mother want to avoid a flogging for having given birth to a bastard child she would turn the baby over to a so called baby farmer or would dispose of it in some other way. The penalty for concealing an illicit pregnancy and the birth which results was death by hanging.

Which brings me to ask a question. Actually several questions Do you believe it should be a crime for a woman to have an abortion? If yes should she punished as if she had committed murder which would mean if she paid someone to perform the abortion she would face execution? Answering this question for myself; if I believed abortion was murder and I believed in the death penalty which I don't but if I did I would have no hesitancy giving your teenage mother the needle if she had paid someone to abort you. Of course your mother was a child herself but still old enough to know she would die if she had you aborted.

Now if that is too extreme or for whatever reason don't believe in capital punishment or that the rhetoric abortion is murder isn't really honest and that abortion while it should be a crime should be a lesser one than murder what punishment should the woman receiving for aborting her baby.

And let me say this. The fact I support a woman's reproductive rights across the board moots the following assertion. If it is a crime to have an abortion it is patently absurd a woman shouldn't be punished within the criminal justice system for having one. To suggest she shouldn't be punished is to impose on her the status of a child even after she has turned 18 or 21. Incapable of making decisions on giving birth or not.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bearski 2 years ago
I hope Con isn't giving up on the debate. Con has made some good arguments.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
Men must share the responsibility and consequences of abortions, the same as women.
Posted by bearski 2 years ago
Missmedic: You may be aware of a case in El Salvador where a 17 year old woman was sentenced to 30 years in prison for having an abortion. The woman had gone to a hospital emergency room after a miscarriage. The staff suspected she had performed an abortion on herself and contacted the police. She was found guilty of aggravated murder of an unborn baby and sentenced to 30 years in prison. If you ask most so called pro life people what punishment the woman who aborts her baby or fetus should receive-- they refuse to answer. If it is murder if that is what they believe then it is absurd there shouldn't be any punishment for a woman who chooses to have an abortion. It just is. But it is not about the unborn baby it is about controlling the sex lives of women
Posted by weorweotnp 2 years ago
I hate to be one who debates in the comments but an indirect knock upon my argument was placed, and I believe I am allowed a rebuttal. Again, I am not legislating a woman's sexuality. I am simply saying that if a woman is going to get pregnant, she should not be able to use an immoral option as a way out. If you go buy a puppy without realizing you can't take care of it, you don't then get to kill the puppy to avoid raising it, it's not moral. I don't believe this perpetuates any sort of male supremacy, to say that a child shouldn't be killed on account of an irresponsible act of two adults, that has everything to do with the child, and I would be very curious to see how I am perpetuating any sort of male supremacy.
Posted by TheCritic89 2 years ago
I don't think you really started with a strong premise yourself before asking for the best of the best. Your actual opinion on the morality of abortion isn't particularly clear.
Posted by bearski 2 years ago
Foucault: I am not basing my arguments on the question of the morality of abortion itself or when it occurs. That is up to the pregnant woman herself, her conscience, and those she chooses to inform that conscience. To my opponent deciding to have an abortion in the context cited would have been an immoral act. What I am trying to do is demonstrate how abortion bans/restrictions have little or nothing to do with the unborn baby and everything to do with the woman. Specifically to perpetuate male supremacy over women by restricting their sexuality and by punishing them either directly or indirectly for supposed sexual transgressions.
Posted by weorweotnp 2 years ago
I'm glad we settled your first argument, now on to the second.
Your articles were interesting, and there are some points that I will key on:

Socioeconomic level in correlation to education as well as abortion:
The highest abortion percentage in the United States is in the Black community, on average about 870 Black children are aborted every day, they make up roughly 48% of all aborted children, in 2012, 32,000 black children were aborted compared to 24,000 that were born, according to J. Kenneth Blackwell, policy board member of the American Civil Rights Unions. Clearly, we should be looking here.

Now, education is a huge factor, that is obvious. Black students graduate high school at the lowest clip, 69%, 4% below hispanics and 17% below whites, so yes an uneducated population tends to make dumber decisions. It's not birth control access however, according to national health statistics compiled by the CDC,
99% of women aged 15-44 who have had sex have used a contraceptive device at least once, 88% of them falling under the category of "reversible method such as birth control pills, an injectable method, a contraceptive patch, or an intrauterine device."

Here's where you miss the boat. You say marriage is not a factor in abortions, and yet when you look at the single motherhood rates in each ethnic community, the rates of single motherhood correlate proportionally with that of abortion. Black single motherhood is currently is 67% for blacks, largely disproportionate to the rest of the country, also disproportionate is the fact that 48% of all children aborted are African American. You're simply kidding yourself if you think that pregnant single women aren't aborting their children because they don't have a father for their child or a source of income to raise it.

Education is huge, I agree, so let's get more people to graduate. But let's also teach society that impregnating a woman and leaving is wrong.
I will cite my articles in a following com
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
And by the way, the solution to the abortion epidemic is education, birth control and a support system.
Marriage has nothing to do with reducing abortion. All a person has to do is look at countries with the lowest abortion rates and see how they do it.
Posted by Foucault 2 years ago
Contender should have opened with a fact: 99% of all abortions occur in the first trimester. It's done with a pill. Not cutting open a skull and sucking out a brain. Furthermore, the embryo is no bigger than a bean.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.