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

Abortion debate, anyone?

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
Gorbin has forfeited round #3.
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: 1/4/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 612 times Debate No: 106400
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




I think killing babies is wrong.


Since there was no proper resolution for the debate.. I will propose one.

Resolved: Abortion should be a right of women.

Since I am in the Pro of the debate, I affirm the resolved and my case will be formatted into contentions; being reasons and eveidence why I affirm said resolution.

Contention 1: Reproductive choice empowers women by giving them control over their own bodies.

The choice over when and whether to have children is central to a woman's independence and ability to determine her future. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in the 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, "The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives." Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her dissenting opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) that undue restrictions on abortion infringe upon "a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature." CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, JD, stated that Roe v. Wade was "a landmark of what is, in the truest sense, women’s liberation."

Contention 2: Modern abortion procedures are safe and do not cause lasting health issues such as cancer and infertility.

A peer-reviewed study published by Obstetrics & Gynecology in Jan. 2015 reported that less than one quarter of one percent of abortions lead to major health complications. A 2012 study in Obstetrics & Gynecology found a woman's risk of dying from having an abortion is 0.6 in 100,000, while the risk of dying from giving birth is around 14 times higher (8.8 in 100,000). The study also found that "pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion." The American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated "Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States." They also said the mortality rate of a colonoscopy is more than 40 times greater than that of an abortion. The National Cancer Institute (NCI), the American Cancer Society (ACS), and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all refuted the claim that abortion can lead to a higher probability of developing breast cancer. A 1993 fertility investigation of 10,767 women by the Joint Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found that women who had at least two abortions experienced the same future fertility as those who had at least two natural pregnancies.

Contention 3: Women who are denied abortions are more likely to become unemployed, to be on public welfare, to be below the poverty line, and to become victims of domestic violence.

A University of California at San Francisco study found that women who were turned away from abortion clinics (because they had passed the gestational limit imposed by the clinic) were three times more likely to be below the poverty level two years later than women who were able to obtain abortions. 76% of the "turnaways" ended up on unemployment benefits, compared with 44% of the women who had abortions. The same study found that women unable to obtain abortions were more likely to stay in a relationship with an abusive partner than women who had an abortion, and were more than twice as likely to become victims of domestic violence.

Contention 4: Many religious organizations and people of faith support women's reproductive choice.

Although many religious groups oppose abortion, the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, and the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations are all officially pro-choice. The Bible, despite interpretations to the contrary, contains no explicit condemnation of abortion, and does not portray the killing of a fetus as equivalent to the killing of a human being. In Exodus 21:22-25, the crime of causing a woman to miscarry is treated as a property crime, whereas killing the woman is considered murder and is punished with the death penalty. While the Catholic and Lutheran churches oppose abortion, more of their members believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases versus illegal in all or most cases (51% vs. 45%, Lutheran; 48% vs. 45%, Catholic). Joe Biden, 47th US Vice President, stated in Oct. 2012 that "I accept my church’s position on abortion... But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others...".

Contention 5: A baby should not come into the world unwanted.

Having a child is an important decision that requires consideration, preparation, and planning. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment stated that unintended pregnancies are associated with birth defects, low birth weight, maternal depression, increased risk of child abuse, lower educational attainment, delayed entry into prenatal care, a high risk of physical violence during pregnancy, and reduced rates of breastfeeding. 49% of all pregnancies among American women are unintended.

Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for debating, and you accepted the challenge quickly too, I like it. So you made five contentions. First, you say a woman has control over her own body, and I agree. However, a baby is not part of a woman's body. A choice to do what you want with your body ends when it involves harming somebody else, which includes a fetus. Being inside somebody's body does not make you part of that person in the same way being in a car does not make you part of that car. If parents don't want children, they don't have to have any, but that doesn't excuse killing somebody. Adoption and safe sex are much better alternatives. Your second contention: well they may be safe but frankly I don't care how safe they are, that would not justify killing a fetus. Three: I'm sure those statistics add up and being unemployed/on welfare/in poverty/a victim of abuse are all terrible things, but having bad things happen to you does not mean you can kill an innocent person. You can replace the fetus as a one year-old, can a woman kill her infant when bad things happen to her? Four: frankly I don't care what religious organizations think of this, I am not religious. Five: I agree, but you can't kill somebody just because you don't want him/her in your life. If a woman decides she doesn't want/is unable to care for her two year-old, can she kill her two year-old?


Thank you for your response.

To address your refutation of my first contention, I will state that a baby is not physically part of a woman's body, but this does not take away from the idea that she should decide what she can do with her child. I would hope you agree with the fact that, most of the time, parents have the baby's best interest in mind. Circumstances where having an abortion is moral would be such as; the life of the baby at risk, or the life of the mother is at risk. Should a mother be forced to die to protect the life of her child? She should not, and for more than one reason. Only the mother and family know what kind of world the baby would come into. If she were to die during childbirth, this could force the father either to come under economic tension as he alone might not be able to afford it. As well as the factor of development. A baby should have a mother to grow up with and the mother plays the most important role in a child's upbringing. Her not being there would hinder the development of the baby substantially in unknown ways.

To address your refutation of my second contention, a mother is actually more likely to die during childbirth than having an abortion and unseen consequences for the family would follow. Look to my first response.

Response to your refutation of my third contention, I state those could happen to the mother. Are you saying the mother, and the baby should have to take physical abuse for x amount of portion of their lives? And that its okay for a mother not to be able to provide for her child? It is not. Mind you, if not given an abortion, the mother is much more likely to be abused by her spouse. This could branch off to the child as well, as many abuse cases do. The baby should not have to be introduced to a world a physical violence.

4. I really only included that because it a heavy hitting side on the neg, and used to just because I thought you might, that's all.

5. This response can be gathered from pretty much the response I had to your refutation of my third contention.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 2


So I agree that an abortion is justified if the mother's life or the baby's life is in danger. With regards to dying during childbirth, the risk of somebody getting killed is not an excuse for that person to kill somebody else, that could lead down a very dangerous path. I can justify killing somebody else by saying "well it's possible that I may have died so I had to kill that person to protect myself." That argument works when the threat of harm is imminent (i.e. somebody physically attacking you) but not when the outcome is largely uncertain. So, if a baby is an obvious threat to a mother's life, it would have to be killed, but if there is no obvious threat, life has to be protected at all costs. Your third claim is saying a mother should not have to endure abuse for having a baby. Of course I agree, however you can't punish the baby for something the spouse is doing (i.e. abusing), how about we kill (or at least jail) the spouse? Growing up in poverty and being physically abused are bad things, but killing is even worse. Again, if a five year-old is poor and abused, can we kill him too? Smart move taking the religious ground away from your opponent, it might work on somebody else :). (That's not sarcasm, don't worry)
This round has not been posted yet.
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
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Coolguy11 2 years ago
@DrAnomaly The property rights argument assumes that a fetus is a woman's property, and since women can do what they want with their property, abortion is justified using that argument. However, I don't believe a fetus is a woman's property, but rather its own person who has a right to life, so I think abortion violates the NAP with respect to the fetus. Unless you are saying the fetus has property rights, in that case abortion is still unjustified because a fetus would have a right to his/her body (the property).
Posted by DrAnomaly 2 years ago
I get my ethics from the NAP and property rights, so the question is; Does abortion violate the non-aggression principle, or property rights.
This debate has 4 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.

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