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

Abortion is Murder

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 943 times Debate No: 105492
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)



In this debate, I am taking the stance of the Pro. I think that abortion should be classified as murder and should be illegal.
For the first round, simply post your stance on this issue.
For the second round, we'll state the facts for our arguments.
For the third round, we will counter each other.
Finally, in the fourth round, we will finish countering along with providing closing statements.

Before you accept, please make sure that you will be on consistently on while this debate is going on. Each side only has 72 hours to post a debate before they are automatically forfeited. So PLEASE make sure you are able to be on somewhat frequently while this debate is going on.
That said, thank you and I look forward to our debate.


I accept this challenge.

I will, indeed, support the claim that abortion should not be classified as murder. Thank you.

Good luck,
Debate Round No. 1


First off, I would like to thank the Con for accepting this challenge.

It is my contention that abortion is not murder. From the moment conception occurs, the zygote formed is a living, growing human being with full human genetic code. As it is composed of human DNA, the nature is undeniably human. It has an entirely different genetic composition from that of its mother, thus disproving the argument that "it is part of a woman's body and she can do what she likes with it". The unborn child is also biologically alive, as it fulfills all the scientific requirements for biological life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. The unborn child is also guaranteed to live provided disease, external intervention, or accident does not occur.

Abortion is murder from a legal standpoint as well. The Declaration of Independence state that, "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness." Abortion ends the life of the unborn baby as well as taking away the baby's pursuit of happiness in life, clearly violating its rights.

With this I conclude my initial arguments. After the Con states his arguments, we will then begin a round of countering each other along with stating further arguments.

I hope to hear from the Con soon.




Before I continue on, I would like to say that I do believe that abortion is murder. But to strengthen my debate skill I choose to accept the Con of this debate. And I've got to say, this is really hard.

Anyways, let's look at a scenario:

Embryo are just bunch of cells that are not "formally structured"
These embryo does not have a fully formed brain.
They can't feel emotions because they're bunch of cells.

Now, a bacteria is a cell.
A bacteria doesn't have a fully formed brain
They can't feel emotion.
Is it okay if a bacteria is murdered?

Just like that that, they're really not a specific difference between an embryo and the bacteria.

Let's say I was to die.
But not only that, while I was about to die, I was in so much pain.
So much pain that I couldn't feel anything else.
So my doctor put me down.
Is that murder?
Not really, in every person's point of view.

Now, from above, I can only feel pain and nothing else. (This includes emotions.)
Now, an embryo can't think and even feel emotions.
So you're basically saying "yes" that it is okay to kill an embryo.

Hope to hear you soon,

Best wishes,
Debate Round No. 2


As this is the third round, the Con and I will now counter each other's arguments from Round 2.

I agree that a bacterium is a cell. However, the bacterium does not have a genetic code specifically and only composed of human DNA, or a predetermined gender, as the human zygote does from conception. The definition of a human is "Any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens." Now, because of the DNA composition of the zygote, it is automatically a member of the species Homo Sapiens, and, thus, is a human being and incomparable to bacteria.

Now, I'll analyze the Con's situation of being put down because of pain and only feeling pain. I would consider this murder as well, as it is the termination of a human life. However, I really don't think this is a good analogy, as the baby is not in pain. It is the mother's not wanting a baby that results in the abortion. A better analogy to that of a fetus within the womb would be a person in a coma. The person is unable to express emotion, feel pain, or really do anything except sustain vital life functions for some time, similar to that of a baby. We wouldn't kill the person in the coma, would we? No, of course not, as that person is alive and could wake up. The unborn baby is also alive and will be born, provided disease, external intervention, or accident do not occur, and has a much higher chance of living than that of the person in the coma.

I look forward to hearing from the Con.




I would like to say, I have no contradiction to make. I do agree with your argument.

However, I something to say.

What is the right thing to do in this case? Do you think that it is right for abortion to occur?

Becuase I have to say, using facts, for this debate especially, cannot solve the problem.

For example, Hitler created laws to kill the Jews. The majority of the people in Germany supported Hitler. They thought they were RIGHT to murder Jews. But are they actually correct?

Same as this scenario, you may think that abortion is not correct. But is that the correct answer? Or is it not correct?

Actually, nobody knows. Nobody in this chaotic world even knows what's right and what's wrong. Actually, people think something right or wrong depending on what their peers say. But is their peers right, or wrong?

And using facts can't really help. Why? Becuase they only explain what abortion is, and there are no clear answer.

Also, when you used the Declaration of Independence as one example to support your claim, think about it. Is the Declaration of Independence right or wrong? And also, is Hitler's constitution right or wrong? Hitler's Consitution is no different from our Constitution. I'm not saying that our Consitution is crazy like his, but the main point is, nobody knows if our Constitution is right or wrong. Our Consitution may be similar to Hitler's Constitution but less crazy. But are we actually no different than Hitler's? The people supporting Hitler thought they were doing right. But if we support the President and the Constitution, could we be like the people who support Hitler?

So really, it comes down to our opinion on this issue. But opinions are not accepted in debates because they are not the most reliable sources.

But what do you think? Do you believe that abortion is wrong? Or is it right?

Because, really, nobody knows the real answer to this particular problem. It all comes down to our opinions if that abortion is either a murder or not.

And why? It's because we are humans and we do not know for sure what's right and what's wrong.

Best wishes,
Debate Round No. 3


This is the final round of this debate. I would like to thank the Con in advance for participating in this debate with me. For this final round, the Con and I will counter arguments from the 3rd round and provide our closing statements.

The Con stated that "using facts can't really help". Using facts can help us to determine the truth, as has been proven many times before and will be proven many times in the future, and this same rule can also be applied to the abortion argument.

I really don't think the Con comparing our government and documents to Hitler's is a good idea here. Hitler was trying to carry out genocide, while the pro-life movement is an act of trying to preserve human life and provide it with everything that a human deserves. Sure, people supported Hitler, but that doesn't make it right, does it? Of course not. Hitler's stances were created by presuppositions and biases, those of the pro-life movement are based on factual evidence - this is a big difference.

My opponent also stated that we, as humans, cannot tell right from wrong. I disagree! Otherwise, why punish people for murder, or rape, or theft, or any other crime? The statement that we don't know right from wrong is absolutely absurd!

Abortion is murder. I have established in this debate that the organism in the mother's womb is a living human baby that deserves to live. The termination of human life, which we are dealing with in an abortion, is, indeed, murder. When looking at the facts, it is clear that the unborn baby fulfills and contains all the characteristics that can also be applied to every living human being. Abortion is murder.

With this, I close my side of this debate, and look forward to hearing the Con's final statements.
Once again, I'd like to thank the Con for participating in this debate.



So I do want to say that you never understood my point.

The main point is that nobody really knows if abortion is either right or wrong. This is almost the same as if the people who supported Hitler never knew if they were right or wrong.

So I just want to conclude with this: facts, do indeed, help us. However, it doesn't give the EXACT answer for morality. What you've proven is that facts and how abortion, in what you believe, is murder.

How do you know that abortion is right? How do you know that abortion is wrong? This answer will never be shown.

So I say is, there is no right answer and that we could be both wrong.

What is the right choice? Nobody knows because we're humans

You supported your argument with government, but how do you know if our government is right or even wrong?

Really, nobody knows with the answer of morality. It is undefined, and really answering if abortion is/not murder is basically a morality question.

Finally, I do want to say that it was really interesting arguing as a Con. This debate was really exciting and it was very fun. For me, it was hard to support the claim of why abortion is not considered murder when I did actually believe that abortion was considered as murder. However, I did learn so much and it was really fun.

Thank you, Pro, for having this kind of debate.

Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by DeletedUser 2 years ago
Thank you for reporting his vote, whiteflame.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Quoting from Nd2400, "It not murder. Let me ask you something. If you were rape, and got pregnant at an early age, were you still in school. Would you still want this baby? Plus you could have an Abortion before the it start growing. So, really you not murdering. Plus would you want this baby to struggle in life because you got rape at a young age?" Abortion is not murder!

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn"t explain conduct, S&G or sources. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to do more than simply quote someone entirely separate from the debate and voice agreement with the argument that person made. The voter must assess specific points made by both sides.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 2 years ago
Abortion is not murder!
Posted by John_C_1812 2 years ago
The climate change here is that a confession to a felony is not the felony crime. It is only say it has or will take place. This whole argument is and was Unconstitutional and this was doomed for a horrific outcome from the start. Justifications made publicly in relationship to the self-incrimination offer little or no relief or Judicial liberty.

I am not saying a woman cannot make a self-incriminating confession if she so chose to. In rather solum stance defending the United States Constitution here, simple am compelled to ask why the felony confession of officially stopping life when that is clearly not all that is taking place?
Posted by John_C_1812 2 years ago
lets make something clear for a change it is not murder abortion when used with pregnancy is a criminal self-incrimination to a felony crime which would warrant Grand Jury. By both State and Federal Standard. Unlike s Constitutional expression like Gender Specific Amputation which holds no self-incrimination illegally against the public.
Posted by Nd2400 2 years ago
It not murder.
Let me ask you something. If you were rape, and got pregnant at an early age, were you still in school. Would you still want this baby?
Plus you could have an Abortion before the it start growing. So, really you not murdering.
Plus would you want this baby to struggle in life because you got rape at a young age?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by DawnBringerRiven 2 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 Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded to a lot of Pro's arguments making it a default win for convincing arguments point for Pro. Conduct, grammar, and sources were both used correctly by both debaters so they're tied.
Vote Placed by breakingamber 2 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 Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I was tied on the debate until i read Con round 3, which compared abortion to Hitler, which invoked Godwin's Law and then Con lost in my eyes. Otherwise, both sides debated very well, but my votes go to Pro because he used better arguments and debated better. Otherwise, it was a tie for me. Both sides were courteous and polite, and I didn't catch any spelling or grammar errors.

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