The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

Abortion is A Moral and Should Not Be Restricted

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 6/7/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,187 times Debate No: 56227
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




First round: Acceptance and state reasons.
Second, third, fourth rounds: Arguments upon opponent's statements.
Fifth: Closing argument
Abortion is considered one of the safest medical procedures, along with being ome with almost no consequences of injury. It also is right since it is the woman's body and that the fetus was not born yet. And for also being since we kill animals, what is the difference between a human and a deer? Only our brains if you are speaking of logical difference.


I will be arguing that abortion is, at least in most cases, immoral and should be restricted.
Debate Round No. 1


Abortion, is a delicate issue for some people due to the fact that people bring religion into politics. However, politics is not the place for religion. If abortion were to be banned/restricted, it would mean that women would have their reproductive rights taken away. Along with this, back-alley abortions would cause women to die and/or have serious injuries. Abortion is necessary since it can save the woman's life in cases of where the fetus might be harmful to the woman's body.


My arguments are not based on religion, merely morality.

My morality is not based on religion, but philosophy.

John Stuart Mill writes the following about utilitarian morality.

"The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible, is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible, is that people hear it: and so the other sources of our experiment. In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it. If the end which the utilitarian doctrine proposes to itself were not, in theory and in practice, acknowledged to be an end, nothing could ever convince any person that it was so. No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable, except that each person, so far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness. This, however, being a fact, we have not only all the proof which the case admits of, but all which it is possible to require that happiness is a good: that each person"s happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of all persons."

My morality is based on utilitarian morality, or the process of maintaining maximum happiness.

Fetuses may not be humans, but they have the potential to become humans.

Why is killing an adult human wrong? Because you take away their future, and thus their potential for happiness.

In fact, aborting a fetus could be considered worse, because the fetus has more left of their life to experience happiness in.

Thus, if the fetus is a danger to the mother, it is still immoral to abort it because the mother is less likely to experience as much future happiness as the fetus.

There are cursory instances in which the fetus may have a genetic disorder that prevents it from living a normal life, but these are rare and do not outweigh the majority.

Over to pro.
Debate Round No. 2


Um, okay. I have nothing to go against that speech, so moving on.
Fetuses are human, based on the DNA, so they are by nature in the Homo sapien genus. Potential for happiness? That is odd. If life is only for happiness, why do we kill rapists and murderers? What you are saying would mean all convicts would have to be free. Thus, they can be happy committing crimes.
I don't see how it can be worse. How do you know they will be able to take their first breath. For all we know, the fetus could be dead upon childbirth, meaning a life that has not taken place yet.
So happiness is only important upon life expectancy? If the fetus is a danger to the mother, the mother surely can abort it to save her life.
Not really. Genetic disorders are quite common. That is why we have diabetes, asthma, cancer, etc.


I do not support the death penalty as punishment for the reasons above. Unless it can be conclusively proved that the collective happiness of society will increase upon the convict's death, there is no reason to force it upon them. They would not be free though. That is a false dichotomy. They will simply be incarcerated as punishment and deterrance for others. If we let criminals live freely they would cause more unhappiness than happiness they gain, so it would be immoral to not punish them.
Yes, the fetus may be dead on childbirth. But this is once again a rare occurrence, and by no means sets the standard.
Happiness is important on quantity and quality. The fetus has more of life to live than the mother, so it is moral to allow a risk of loss of part of the mother's life rather than a certainty of loss the entire life of the fetus.
Genetic disorders may be common, but debilitating ones that prevent a happy life are not common.
Debate Round No. 3


Okay we have established the criminals, now to move on.
No it isn't. Fetuses are born dead everyday. The meaning of rare is something that doesn't happen often or hard to come by.
And how do you know. The fetus may be born alive but could die the next year. That doesn't make sense. Why choose something not guaranteed to live over something that can and possibly be in agony for months?
Also not true. A lot of people have mental illnesses caused by that which is debilitating. Schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, autism, etc. Also, diabetes, asthma, and cancer as previously stated are genetic disorders that ARE debilitating.


"Fetuses are born dead everyday."

[Citation Needed]

The fetus MAY die the next year but again, this is not likely. Look. Would you rather take away part of someone's life or their whole life?

Schizophrenia, depression, and anxiety are not genetic disorders.

Autism, diabetes, and asthma are not debilitating.

Cancer can be treated.
Debate Round No. 4


DonovanMGwinn forfeited this round.


To reiterate:

In most cases abortion prevents an entire life with the capability of being like ours.

Any possible benefit to the mother is not worth it because she already lived a portion of her life.

Debilitating disorders are too rare to set the standard.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by DonovanMGwinn 7 years ago
Since when has humans been a higher race? By nature we are animals just as they. The only difference is intellect. Now the change that humans make is usually violent and harmful to the ecosystems which means we aren't a higher status.
Posted by myvoice78 7 years ago
The real debate from the con side should be that a woman's right to choose life or death outweighs the choice for life or death the fetus will have. The fetus chooses to live on the fact that it continues to do so. With no other environmental influences to alter the fetus' thinking, the most simple choice to make is survival. The fetus continues to survive and does so at the ethical limits of their mother. Is the fetus's life more valuable than the mother's ethical limits or the is the mother's ethical decision making outweigh the choice of the fetus to survive?
Posted by Surrealism 7 years ago
But "higher" doesn't mean anything. I would argue that killing a deer is just as immoral as killing a human. Killing any animal is immoral and it is shameful that we do it.
Posted by Owl099 7 years ago
The difference between us and a deer, is that we are a higher order and higher race. It is the humans that are finding things to do with the world and beyond and not the animals. Abortion can kill off great saints and scientists and slows us down from discovering new things. If we kill a deer (providing that there are many other deer to reproduce) it is not going to make a large difference where as destroying an opportunity to become closer to the truth is going to make a difference by slowing us down,
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Utilitarian philosophy is based on maintaining maximum happiness of society. If fetus has much more potential to do bad than to do good (which is the case if his parents do not want him), then you get rid of it by utilitarian philosophy.

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