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

Abortion is Immoral.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
DethKnot has forfeited round #2.
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: 4/19/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 686 times Debate No: 102065
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




I will take the stance of Pro-Life. I believe that a fetus is considered a form of human life and has the rights a human has from the moment of fertilization to birth. A few things to begin, scientists have established that life begins at fertilization (Princeton). With this in mind, it is important to understand that an abortion at any week during the pregnancy is the taking of a life, regardless of the physical traits that the fetus has yet to or already has developed. Note that terminology (fetus, cellular organism, etc.) isn't enough to justify the right to take the life of the fetus. So to the person arguing against, I would ask at what point during the development of a baby does the fetus obtain human rights or the status to be treated as such? What physical characteristics does a fetus need to obtain in order to be considered eligable for the right to life? How do you determine the standard as to how you judge that decision?


I will like to take the stance of Pro-life as well. As it is just a common term, but people for abortion are not against life as that is a misconception. I am however, labeled as pro-choise. I am proud of that term to describe myself. It indicates freedom of what option to choose. How to do it right is another issue. I will say before I continue that this really is an issue in which women really need full access to decide. The man may have given the seed, but the women go through all the hard work of pregnancy. And if society wants to label women as people that should stay in the kitchen and take care of kids and do most of the raising of them, then they should even more so have complete say on what they do with their unborn fetus. Now, I realize it is a bit off topic, but I did want to say that as to give background on women and the common society's view on them. Now, on the main subject, I fully believe there are many cases in which abortion is the moral thing to do. Many examples can include things like rape and limited financial and emotional resources to support the baby in the future. Another popular example is if the fetus is born improperly and would have little chance of surviving even with surgery or of living a life free of physical pain because it did not develop properly up until it was born and may continue to develop in more painful ways. The ways in which I'm describing may be missing parts of lungs or a heart or bladder or some sort of similar combination. It may in fact, realistically, not be worth it to let the fetus survive if they end up just living a life of misery, physical pain, starvation, or the like. All the resources used for the baby that will not be happy or live long anyway could be used for another baby that actually has a lot bigger of a chance to survive. Now to address my opponent's concerns, a human is born and automatically has a right to life. However, this may involve taking the mother's life. Or, as i addressed before, the future that can be very painful and full of problems that healthy babies don't deal with. I feel any at any stage it is up to the mother and maybe with input from the father when the fetus should be aborted and if it should. This argument can maybe set the grounds about how to prevent this sort of issue in the first place, like teaching about sex instead of abstinence only. But in the end of the day, it is not up to us what to do about an unborn fetus. It is up to the family involved and the only involvement we should have is spreading the correct education and we only have say in this sort of matter in very particular situations like a couple with mental issues that purposely have cause pregnancy and abortion for the sake of sadism or something of the like. This however, is rare, and so our involvement of this sort of thing should be kept minimal. All that I have said was similar to that of a professor of Human Sexuality at Tarrant County College in Fort Worth, Texas.
Debate Round No. 1


Just to clarify, I didn't post this in my first argument. When it comes to the situation in which a mother's life is at stake I believe that is a different situation that in many cases it cannot be helped but to abort the baby. For example, if a mother needs chemotherapy for breast cancer. Same would go for if a fetus with certain health conditions that would prove to be life threatening. This is a different situation than the one I am arguing which is that people will have abortions because they choose to abort the baby out of convenience. Reality is, there are people that make stupid choices, and there are instances of intense bad luck. Either way, two wrongs don't make a right. I completely agree sex education needs to be more widespread than it is, and I would love to see birth control be much more affordable than it is already. But I would still like to see my opponent address my question more thoroughly, you mentioned when a baby is born it gains it's rights. So then you assert that it isn't about the physical characteristics of the baby that make it human, but the placement of the baby. Ok, but, now you cannot legally do anything when a woman decides to do drugs, smoke, or drink a lot during her pregnancy. Even if someone from outside strikes the womb, they cannot be charged with manslaughter but only assault. By that logic you can no longer accuse a woman or anyone of abusing an unborn child. If you're ok with admitting that, then your argument is sound.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
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
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by John_C_1812 4 years ago
The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of abortion with privacy violations. An immoral issue outside the confession being made is the self-incrimination that is violating a person"s privacy directly. If the United States Constitution was protected and defended properly. The privacy issue would have been the first point of order. Again the public is instructed to tell a lie when using the word abortion, when a person then goes on to make a justification publicly. This goes on after first violating a person"s right of privacy.

The justifications do not match the violation Pro-Choice Pro-life. A Professional is a person who performs a task as a way to earn a living. This has United States Constitutional Civil Court problems outside the confession of abortion so will be skipped. Does not match the confession made. A process is not officially stopped, the process is ended, and the object not process is removed as a choice. A process has a precedent in fact, and in the Medical field is labeled as an amputation, a Gender Specific Amputation is an impartial elaboration. By fact Living limbs/part of people are removed. The Warning is. A God like power can be derived by the transfer of the self-incrimination to a crime publicly. As they effect all people.
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.