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

Abortion (Pro life)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2018 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,026 times Debate No: 107529
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




I"m pro-life. Just think about it, your murdering. Not just anyone, your own child. It doesn"t stop you from being a mother. It makes you the mother of a dead child. Furthermore, one of the most common things pro-choice people say is "her body, her choice." Well excuse me, but that makes no sense at all. Abortion is killing another person's body, killing one's own body is called suicide.


Accepted. Pro may extend their arguments to the next round - then I will provide my opening arguments, followed by rebuttals/closing arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


Okay. I'll start by saying I'm pro-life.
What makes life "life"? If you want to go at an atomic level, all that humans are is series of chain reactions of the transfer of kinetic and potential energies. Our thoughts are basically more of the same.
That being a matter of religion and biased answers for the most part, I think that a literal human cell is the basis of life. That's where one can truly tell the difference between a blob of atoms or an organized cell. It's phase two of three, where phase one is unorganized atoms, phase two is organized atoms, and phase three is the completion of the cell from phase two split a bunch. If you think about it, phase two doesn't truly end until the organism stops growing... so when most humans are in their early adulthood. Is a baby "more complete" than a fetus? Sure, but definitely not complete. They have a different number of bones, even.
I know you discussed brain development and whether not s baby can feel pain or not, and if that reason justifies abortion. Just because a baby's brain hasn't developed doesn't mean that it's ok to end their life. Legally, a person isn't dead until their body and brain don't respond anymore naturally (not being kept "alive" artificially... but they are alive without all of their brains legally anyhow). It's similar to a person that can't feel their arm due to brain issues, specifically. Is it ok to cut it off just because they don't have the mental capacity to feel or use it? Although this is a flawed analogy, is it ok to end the life of someone who is unconscious because they are incapable of knowing?


Opening Argument:

Abortion, for most women who choose to have it, will take place within the first month of pregnancy - in fact, the vast majority of women who get abortions are fairly decided about that path and do not generally take long to get the procedure - which can either be done through oral means or through inserting a pill into the vagina, which is referred to as a 'medical abortion', or a 'surgical abortion', which involves inserting a tube into the vagina and dilating the cervix and manually removing the zygote, embryo or fetus.

Given that most abortions do take place within the first month, it is only the zygote or embryo (collection of embryonic cells) that is being aborted and not a developing fetus. A zygote does not become an embryo until the third week, and an embryo does not become a fetus until the sixth week. [1.]

The reasons as to why some women abort can be varied - this is what statistics on abortion from the U.S state:

25% of surveyed women had an abortion because they 'were not ready for a child'.

23% of surveyed women had an abortion because they 'could not afford a baby'.

19% of surveyed women had an abortion because they were 'done having children'.

8% of surveyed women had an abortion because they 'do not want to be a single mother'.

7% of surveyed women had an abortion because they 'were not mature enough'.

[2.] (see 'why do abortions occur?'

In addition, direct medical problems either with the embryo or fetus or the woman can be why a small percentage of women abort - a heartbeat isn't detected until the third week of the embryonic stage, which, if you add another couple-few weeks for other physical abnormalities to develop, takes you past the first trimester of pregnancy - thus, the women who actually do get later abortions are those who have been told that the fetus is abnormal in some way. This is of course excluding the instance that they themselves are the ones with the problem - as in this scenario, fairly early abortions take place.

It's important not to solely focus on abortions that are done for physical reasons, though. Women who abort for other reasons are usually not psychologically ready to have children and bare the responsibilities that motherhood brings. They are either too young, too financially unstable, or without sufficient support from a partner and family members (mostly, it's a combination of all three). This naturally begs the question of how humane it would be to actually *deny* women abortions when they are in no fit state to be taking care of the child. From any rational perspective, there is no sense in bringing a child into a world in which it may be unwanted, poor, and without adequate care from the people who both made it. Children require financial stability, emotional stability (e.g, two present parents) and guidance. They do not receive any of the above things with parents who are ill-equipped for parenthood.
Debate Round No. 2


Sorry for the late response but this is should not be about what the women wants. So if a woman wants to kill her child, she can? Because she is not ready for a baby? She kills it? I think everyone would much rather live the be torn to death. Even if it's living in poverty, and not getting the best 'nurturing.' I honestly don't think that a woman in America will fall into poverty and be on the streets if she gave birth to a baby. She could just give the baby up for adoption.



'So if a woman wants to kill her child, she can? Because she is not ready for a baby? She kills it?'

We previously established (in my opening argument) that abortions are performed in the early stages of pregnancy - it is mostly either the zygote or embryo that is aborted, thus, one can't really consider the process akin to a woman killing her child.

In the first few weeks it has no heartbeat = thus, it is not yet alive, in the strictest sense of the word.

'I think everyone would much rather live the be torn to death. Even if it's living in poverty, and not getting the best 'nurturing.'

The first sentence doesn't even make any sense. In response to the second one: not taking into account the woman's financial situation, and then making her keep the child which will in turn expose it to hardship that will negatively impact it, is absolutely not the way to go. There is nothing rational in bringing a child into a world in which it has little to no chance of thriving; children need nourishment and stability - both emotional and financial. I'm amazed that my opponent thinks it's more humane to allow a living human child to suffer and go without, but deems it inhumane to abort a cell or tiny collection of cells.

'I honestly don't think that a woman in America will fall into poverty and be on the streets if she gave birth to a baby. She could just give the baby up for adoption.'

If a woman is already in poverty (as many women who get abortions are), the likelihood of it improving is extremely slim. If anything she will become *more* poor as she will have an another person to provide for. Children are a huge financial investment - one of which you are legally expected to take care of until it reaches adulthood. As for giving up the baby for abortion - there is no guarantee that anyone would want it. It's all very well if the child gets adopted as a baby, but if it has to grow up in a care system, it will have no parental guidance or support.

Closing Statement:

Pro has failed to show how/why abortion is the same as murder, and ignored key parts of my argument (the main one being that a pre-fetal baby cannot be considered a child), therefore, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Emilrose 3 years ago
Do respond.
Posted by hellopuppy4 3 years ago
why start a argument about this???
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SamStevens 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt that Con had more convincing arguments. Using statistics and sources to back up their points, she effectively stated that many women who undergo abortions were simply not the right candidates to be mothers, for a variety of reasons including but not limited to not wanting the child or not wanting to be a single mother. Having a child is a massive undertaking, so it's only fair that the mother be sure that she is fully equipped, both psychologically and financially, to appropriately rear a child.

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