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
ConservativeThinker 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: 3/17/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 494 times Debate No: 111015
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




To prove that Abortion is morally wrong, I put forth the syllogism: The intentional killing of human beings is morally wrong, Abortion is the intentional killing of a human being, Therefore Abortion is morally wrong. In order to to prove this syllogism correct, the only thing I have to defend/prove is the fact that the unborn are not human.

First, instead of appealing to philosophy or religion, I will appeal to the science of determining when life begins: Embryology. Any embryologist will tell you that the human development begins at fertilization with the one celled zygote. ("The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3])
Second, the woman has a right to do with her body what she wants up until she violates the rights of the unborn. Most will say that the woman should have a right to control her body but the baby is not a body part. The unborn have their own DNA and since every single cell in the mother's body has the exact same DNA except that of the unborn.
Third, some might say that because the unborn are not self conscious, they are not human. This argument fails because self consciousness is not intrinsic to being human. In fact, every night when you go to sleep, you are not in a state of self consciousness but it does not change your "humanness".
In conclusion, to simply say the unborn are not human because they haven't traveled 7 inches down the Fallopian tube is incredibly wrong.


I would like to thank my opponent for having the gusto of discussing such a controversial topic! My opponent did not specify if round 1 was for acceptance, or if round 1 was only for an opening argument, so I hope my opponent doesn't mind that I'm going to start off with some good ole fashion rebutting.

My opponents approach lacks depth. It is not always immoral to knowingly kill, like for instance self defense. However, if someone were in a position where she had to go through nine months of carrying, followed by a painful pregnancy to give birth to a child she knows she can't properly care for, it may be immoral to try and stop her from aborting. Whether it was her fault to get pregnant or not, forcing her to go through with it only exacerbates a bad situation. Not to mention the cases when the women are raped!

Instead of appealing to religion or philosophy, my opponent uses an interesting approach by appealing to science in his opening thesis (which included a graphic description of fluid exchange that almost made me pass out). However, I remain unconvinced because as long as the baby is in the mothers womb, it is a part of her body. It gets all its nutrients from the mother. From a sterile, uncompashionate, scientific standpoint, the baby is nothing more than a passenger (parasite) and the mother is the host. So I don't think this approach is really gonna shed much light on an unexposed aspect of this topic, because it lacks compassion. Forcing a woman to go through with an unwanted pregnancy lacks compassion, and a scientific analysis can't begin to show the anguish the woman might be in. What if the woman was too young to properly care for the child financially? The father gave into to his sexual desire just as readily as she did, but it is her body that's going to be punished with 9 months of carrying and the pregnancy, not his, so I think the choice belongs to her.

How morally sound is it to bring a child into this world when you know it won't be properly cared for? The foster care system is ripe with abuse and neglect, and if all women are forced to go through with their pregnancy, most of those babies will end up either in a family that can't properly care for them, or in the foster care system. How many of those forced births do you think will have a tough life? If I were a betting man, I'd say most of them!

Thank You!
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
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
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Smooosh 3 years ago
Ouch sista!
Posted by KN0W174LL 3 years ago
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it

Historically speaking before safe abortion was legal women who didn't wish to have children but were already pregnant would throw themselves down stairs or worse in order to cause a miscarriage.

Personally, I'm pro choice but I'm not going to accept this debate because I believe ultimately this issue affects women more than men and thus should be argued by women and not men.
Posted by gameprogrammer 3 years ago
Your syllogism is flawed.

"The intentional killing of human beings is morally wrong".

Do you therefore agree that killing in the self defense of yourself or family is morally wrong?
Do you therefore agree that killing in warfare by the individual soldier is morally wrong?
Do you therefore agree that capital punishment is morally wrong?
Do you therefore agree that abortion is wrong, even if the life of the mother is at serious risk?

These circumstances would fit your syllogism, but at least a few of them would not be considered morally wrong by most individuals. Either you need to correct your syllogism or your argument is flawed from the beginning.

With that said, I don't plan on discussing the moral nature of abortion.
Posted by PointyDelta 3 years ago
the fallopian tube is where the eggs travel down from the ovaries to the womb
Posted by SirDave 3 years ago
I'm not gonna accept the debate, but I reject your second premise. The support to the second premise is also an appeal to authority.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
I agree Pregnancy Abortion is immoral.
Abortion is morally wrong because it is asking all woman to admit to a felony crime knowing all woman are not guilty of the crime they are being told to take part in. Then pregnancy abortion is asking all people to take part in the admission of the crime adding controversy. When human life begins is not a real consideration due to the fact that the admission is self-incriminating and is stating as a fact that life has already been witnessed to have officially began.
It is unclear as to the origin of this description Pregnancy Abortion however it is clearly not American or Constitutional. Which describes is as not only immoral but more than likely illegal as claimed prior to any introduction into legislation.

All the medical definition in the world about when life begins will not change the one fact that the admission made by the people involved negotiated any time period by addressing the fact life is seen to have been started, and a power is sought to officially end this official start. If not there would be no necessity to seek public permission and participation to the confessed crime publicly.

The moral issue becomes more complicated as the admission is made as a lie given officially to authorities and has been placed on official documents of legislation.
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.