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

Abortion is Murder

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
melanielust 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: 4/17/2017 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 573 times Debate No: 102024
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




I will be arguing that abortion is murder. First round arguments, Second round rebuttals and Third round final words.

According to online abortion statistics, over 14 million fetuses have been aborted. For comparison, Hitler only killed a rounded 6 million. If abortion is murder, this makes abortion clinics more evil than Adolf Hitler.

"But the difference is the jews didn't WANT to be killed. All the women who had abortions chose to have an abortion." To that I say, and what about the fetus? I suppose the baby didn't have any say in that decision. Suppose a jew in the holocaust had a child, and decided to have him sent to the holocaust. By your logic, theres nothing wrong with that.

People say its not conscious which makes it okay. Which I suppose means all murderers who killed someone in their sleep aren't really murders.

By the way, fetuses can feel pain by the 11-12th week.

Now lets discuss some of the ways abortions are preformed. I'd also like to note that a lot of these are preformed on late term babies, so during the abortion they're moving and crying like a normal baby.

In one method, they'll stick forceps into the uterus and pull the baby's body out by the leg. They'll get the body out, but not the head as its too big. The doctor will then stick surgical scissors into the base of the skull, and pull them apart the make the opening bigger. A tube is inserted which sucks out the brain, and crushes the skull allowing it to pass through the cervix.

In another method, they'll use pliers and grab a limb, and quickly twist it, snapping it off so it can be pulled out until all thats left is the head, which is crushed.

(As a reminder, the baby can feel pain during these operations)

In another method, they put a salt solution into the uterus, which acts like an acid and burns the baby until its dead.

I think you have the idea, so I'll just leave that there and wait for someone to accept the debate.


There is often a blurry line when defining life in the womb. But according to the majority of medicinal experts, a fetus is not a living thing, and is therefore not entitled to the right to life. The characteristics that comprise of a living thing include cellular organization, reproduction, metabolism, homeostasis, heredity, response to stimuli (including pain, as you mentioned), growth and development, and adaptation through evolution. A baby, of course, does not readily possess many of these qualities, but as a human some are inherent in genetics. The qualities that a fetus does not possess includes response to stimuli, which is shown first at 20 weeks, and sometimes later. Thus, a fetus does not necessarily feel pain, eliminating the first moral obstacle.

But moving back to life in general - it could be argued that, yes, a fetus is a distinct living entity, despite severe deviations from the typical characteristics of life. It is not quite a life so much as a potential life; not quite a human so much as a potential human, because it has not grown enough or been born. It is not even a separate individual: it is completely 100% dependent on the woman's body to survive. A fetus is barely a living thing. Especially with the lack of complex thought processing and emotion, there should be more concern placed on the well being of the mother than the "life" of the fetus.

I'd like to address your point about the many gruesome ways in which late-term babies are killed. It's true that these methods are violent, and in my opinion they are disgusting - but they are necessary. It is so rare that the typical abortion goes into the late term. If a woman waits so long to get an abortion that the baby is able to cry while being killed, there is a very high chance that the baby was wanted, and the only reason it's being killed is because it poses a risk to the life of the mother. By the third trimester, it is unusual to see mothers who have still not made up their mind about getting an abortion - most occur in the early second trimester or even before. It's unfortunate but sometimes complications happen and the baby must be killed in order to save the mother's life.

I also am of the opinion that comparing millions of abortions to the systematic genocide of the Holocaust is inaccurate. (Also Hitler killed 6 million Jews, but around 11 million people total.) Not only are fetuses not living, as said above, but those that do more closely resemble life are usually wanted. The mothers who decide to prioritize themselves, and the clinicians who assist them, are in no way comparable to a perpetrator of genocide.

Thank you for sharing your opinion!
Debate Round No. 1


I like to try and look at things from other peoples perspectives. Probably since I'm a christian, I place a very high value on any human life. So I'll take this from the perspective of an atheist. An atheist once said murder is wrong because their one chance at life would be taken. Anything they would ever do or experience... all gone. So theres a huge reason abortion is wrong right there. Of course in my religion its a lot different, but thats for another discussion.

"It is not even a separate individual: it is completely 100% dependent on the woman's body to survive." Thats true even after birth. If you take an infant away from its parents, what do you suppose will happen? And by that I mean, not given to other people, but I mean with no other person to take care of it. If you say it would die, you'd be right. By that logic, its okay to kill a baby even after its been born.

"It's unfortunate but sometimes complications happen and the baby must be killed in order to save the mother's life." C-Section. Even if the mother might die, it seems the best thing to do would be try and save both and hope for the best.

"The mothers who decide to prioritize themselves, and the clinicians who assist them, are in no way comparable to a perpetrator of genocide." A perpetrator of genocide takes human lives. A mother getting an abortion and the doctor who preforms it do the same. They're easily comparable, its no challenge at all.


Alright, let's say that aborting a fetus is murder because, as you said, it has the potential for life, and the murder of a potential life is murder. By that logic, aborting an embryo is murder. Aborting a blastocyst is murder. Aborting that very first cell at conception is murder. Killing an unfertilized egg is murder, because that egg has the potential for life. Just because it has the potential for life does not mean it should be treated the same as a living thing. With all respect to your religion, of course, I understand why you feel differently, but that is my perspective.

By completely reliant on the mother for survival, I meant that were a fetus not in the condition of the womb, it would not be able to survive or remotely function. A fully developed and born infant now has the internal mechanisms necessary to survive and does not need a second human to feed from.

I wish C-sections were an easy, universal solution, but it's not nearly that simple. In the age of modern medicine we can not simply "hope for the best;" to potentially sacrifice the mother's life just to save the fetus is too great a risk. The mother's life is worth more and if the doctor determines that the best course of action is an abortion, he is probably correct. Think about the greater good: if the mom dies, the baby dies too, so it's a tragedy. If the baby dies to save the mom, she can continue living her life and maybe raise whatever other kids she has and contribute to society. It's definitely a tricky moral and emotional boundary but I feel that the mother's life should always be a priority.

"A perpetrator of genocide takes human lives;" A perpetrator of genocide wants to systematically wipe out a demographic of people. Abortions don't necessarily take human lives; a mother who decides to abort a baby is probably looking out for her own well being and her own life. It is a personal decision, not a designed murder. Imagine the painful decision a mother with a late-term wanted baby has to make, to terminate her pregnancy; I wouldn't call that genocidal.

Again, all respect to your religion
Debate Round No. 2


Well first, lets define the difference between life, and potential for life. A sperm cell is potential for life. An unfertilized egg is potential for life. When they are combined, they become a zygote, which IS life.

The definition of potential is "having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future." Thats what a sperm cell is. It has the capacity to, but it isn't yet. Once combined with the egg, it starts to develop, and becomes life.

A newborn infant will die without a second human to help it. It lacks the motor skills to find its own food, and other things essential to life.

I asked my brother about saving the mother, or saving the fetus and he had a good answer. Statistically, the majority of pregnancies are from accidents where women were careless and let random guys into their pants. My brother says because of this, priority should be put on the baby, after all, the mother chose for this to happen. In cases like rape, they should try to save both, and I say hope for the best, because I believe God will let whatever is supposed to happen, happen. Again, thats for another discussion.

"A perpetrator of genocide wants to systematically wipe out a demographic of people." replace the word "genocide" with "abortion" and it'll still make sense, because thats what abortion clinics do.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by NDECD1441 3 years ago
What is murder? Yes you can say it's killing but not all killing is murder. For example if you step on an ant, you killed the ant! however is it murder? Nooo.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
Oops sorry, It is not a murder it is a self-incriminating confession to murder. The issue is a person can tell a lie when making a confession. Not to split hairs on lies and their meaning but abort means to officially stop not end permanently, this translates to a public described removal as a Gender Specific Amputation.

Abortion is a self-incriminating confession that can be transfers to others while also being proved as a public lie.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
Its not murder it is a self-incriminating confession to murder. The issue is a person can lie why making a confession.
This debate has 0 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.