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

Abortion is morally wrong.

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
somerandomvideocreator has forfeited round #4.
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: 12/17/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,230 times Debate No: 105915
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (25)
Votes (0)




Pro will argue that abortion is morally wrong in every circumstance. Con can either argue that abortion is never morally wrong, or that there are circumstances where abortion is not immoral. This debate is not about the legality or constitutionality of abortion, only its morality.

All human life is valuable and no one is inherently superior to anyone else. Given that human life has value, killing a human is immoral. Logically, an abortion would be immoral if the fetus is a human life. I argue that life begins at conception as that is the only consistent starting point, meaning that abortion is immoral in every circumstance.


I am pro-life myself, but you have a no exceptions policy.

Suppose that a mother has a fetus, but the mother has birth problems, so that the mother would inevitably die during childbirth, and the fetus would also inevitably die as well. An abortion procedure would kill the fetus and save the mother's life. An abortion would be justified because it is saving the mother's life.
Debate Round No. 1


I disagree that a procedure designed to save the mother's life constitutes an abortion. An abortion is the intentional taking of an unborn child's life. This would be a lifesaving medical procedure that, regrettably, results in one life ending. The goal of an abortion is to kill the baby, but the goal of this procedure is to save the mother's life. If there were a way to save the mother without killing the child, the concept and goal of that procedure would remain the same. If someone undergoes a risky surgery and dies, that would not be considered euthanasia because the goal was not to kill the patient. Similarly, a medical procedure designed to save the mother that results in the death of her child should not be considered abortion, as the goal was to save the mother as opposed to killing the child.


Let's suppose that you can time travel into the future (don't ask me how), and you can figure out that a fetus is going to be a terrible dictator and kill many people. In this case, an abortion would be useful to save more lives.

Also, let's suppose that a fetus is inevitably going to die in the womb for some reason or another, and keeping the baby alive will result in severe pain to the mother. You might not call causing the death of the fetus before its inevitable death in the womb an abortion, but it is.
Debate Round No. 2


An abortion may save lives in that case, but it would still be morally wrong as the child has not yet killed anyone. If we were somehow able to determine that you would commit a crime in the future, would it be just to punish you now? Of course not, you shouldn't be punished for something you haven't done. Although it may save lives, that child is innocent and has not killed anyone.
Let's suppose the child will die of natural causes in utero. Why does that make killing the child acceptable? Because of the mother's pain? Normal birth causes pain, but we both agree that is an unacceptable reason for an abortion. I trust you're pro-life because you believe the child is alive, so why is it acceptable to kill a child simply because we know it is going to die? What about someone who has already been born? Is it moral to kill them if we know they are going to die? If your answer is no, please explain the difference between how valuable lives are based on where they are relative to the uterus.
I'd like you to explain how a procedure that saves the mother's life but kills her child is the same as abortion.


I am not sure, but it may be possible to punish somebody if they have strong reason that they are planning on committing a crime.

Also, suppose there are five workers tied to one track and one worker tied to the other. The train is heading on the track with the five workers, but you can switch the track quickly, but not untie any worker. Most people say that it is okay to switch the track.

Now, what if the single worker, instead of being tied to the track, is off the track and is going to pull the lever to intentionally kill the other five workers tied down. Would it be acceptable to kill the single worker now?

These are logically equivalent, killing one person to save five, except one time, the person is planning on killing people, whereas the other time, the person is innocent. It seems that it is more justified to kill the potential murderer than the innocent person.
Debate Round No. 3


What you're talking about is conspiracy. This isn't the case here because the baby isn't conspiring to become a dictator and kill people, it's a baby. Unless you're saying that anyone who has the intent to murder should be executed, I don't see how this argument stands.
In this scenario where you plan to abort a child because of something they do in the future, why not kill them once they actually begin to conspire to commit a crime?
I'm familiar with the trolley dilemma, but these scenarios are completely different. One is a scenario in which it is certain that x amount of people are going to die and we have to choose how large x is. In the other, you have an unborn child that is going to kill people when it gets older.
In a situation where someone is about to kill five other people, killing them would be acceptable because they are actively trying to end the lives of others. I don't see how this pertains to the situation because there are no babies in utero actively trying to kill someone. If your argument is that it is just to abort potential murderers, I would like to point out that everyone is a potential killer.
Again, I ask that you explain how a procedure that is designed to save the mother's life but ends her child's life as a result is the same as an abortion that's purpose is only to kill the child.
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
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MRAAJ 3 years ago
I'm not to fussed man, pretty much said what I have to say, don't think there is more to add to it. If you disagree with what I have said, challenge me because I know what I said is based on experience, knowledge, and lack of bias- i'm a 21 yr old male, I know its none of my business If a woman can have an abortion or not, its up to her and her circumstances.
Posted by TylerLamb 3 years ago
@MRAAJ I meant an actual debate, not an argument in the comments. Make a debate and challenge me to it.
Posted by MRAAJ 3 years ago
@TylerLamb, i'l start I see you wrote (in the first round) that "no one is inherently superior to anyone else", this is clearly wrong, we live in a capitalistic world , its the law of the jungle, those w/ resources are at better off than those without resources. morality is based on perception, ie everyone has different life values, as a liberal, i'm furious at how immoral this world is, but at the same time i can understand circumstances, struggles, and conditions. eg a drug addict may have been born into an area where drug use is high, its not his fault (until he becomes self-aware). Anyway back on topic, there are many reasons why a mother must have an abortion, whether it be her being unfit to raise it, body issues/birth difficulties, etc. By denying her this right, you yourself are being immoral, because its her life. In cases where people get pregnant for jokes, that's different, they need education.
Posted by MRAAJ 3 years ago
TylerLamb sure, I will debate you. What points do you have in response to my no-nonsense comments! :), ie that its up to the mother, and that it is none of the publics' business, since they talk about it being a crime, but the fetus won't care, ...
Posted by Achilees11 3 years ago
Whoever is arguing for the Pro side is a dumbass. If the baby and mother are both going to die, how would an abortion to save one life instead of losing two not be acceptable?
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
Abortion is morally wrong. It simply is not morally wrong for the reasons it is debated. It happens to be morally wrong for much of the same reasons it is illegal. Abortion when used with the word pregnancy is say to official stop life. This is a self-incrimination to a crime. A phrase like Gender specific amputation does not make such a public statement and does not lure people into taking part in a crime. The public in never asked to become an accessory before or after the fact.

"This process is immoral. "
Posted by I_just_plant_the_seed 3 years ago
I would like to do a formal debate of this topic with You, if you would be interested.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
" A objective morality is something that is true and binding, independent of individual perspective and current conditions." This is true, as I did not argue that it was not.
What I was trying to convey, is that a god's existence is based on belief alone and not the facts of reality. Therefor gods can not be objective, but reality is objective and is the one thing that binds us all, whether we believe in it or not. We can not base morality on revelation from authority, that would render us merely obedient. Moral behaviour is doing what's right, not what we're told unless what we're told is also what's right. If you want to change the world, you must act according to reality. Nothing else will affect reality. If you evade this fact, your actions will most likely not have their desired effects. Your failure will be metaphysical justice.

"Also can you absolutely prove to me that external reality exists?" NO But I do not need to as reality exist independent of us, it just is, however if you are conscious you can experience your self. I have quoted Francis Bacon to help explain better and perhaps increase your understanding. Francis Bacon knew that in order to command nature, one must act according to its rules and identity. The statement Reality is Absolute is the explicit recognition of the primacy of existence. This means that reality is not subject to wishes, whims, prayers, or miracles. This makes reality objective by definition.
Objectivity is the recognition of reality as the ultimate standard of evaluation. It is the acceptance that all knowledge is knowledge about reality. It is the only means of determining the truth. The concepts of true and false are only meaningful in reference to reality. To speak of knowledge that we don't understand is a contradiction in terms. The more we know the less we believe.
Posted by MercedesK 3 years ago
Abortion is wrong your killing your baby boy/girl. They are part of you. The only reason you should be getting an abortion is if your a high risk or you know they baby is gonna die if it comes out.
Posted by I_just_plant_the_seed 3 years ago

Simply put, your definition of objective morality is wrong. A objective morality is something that is true and binding, independent of individual perspective and current conditions. For instance, an objective morality that says what Hitler did was wrong, would still be binding even if Hitler succeeded in conquering the whole world and indoctrinating every person. The core part of objective morality is that it is true regardless of a person's opinion, and whether or not it is shared.

Furthermore, your understanding of morality it wrong. It is not a set of facts that tell you what is, but rather it tells you how things ought to be. Facts might be able to tell you if one thing is harmful to the human race or not, but they cannot tell you that you ought not so such things.

A belief is not objective simply because it is shared. Nearly everyone 1000 years ago thought that the world is flat, but that does not make it objectively true. If it is objective, it is true regardless of opinion.

Also can you absolutely prove to me that external reality exists?
This debate has 2 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.