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

Abortion is nearly always wrong.

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
ConservativeDebating 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: 3/28/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 421 times Debate No: 111921
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




I recently posted this same topic, however, I am new and didn't quite understand that the time was unreasonably short. This is a re-post of that with a much more giving time allotment, also with five rounds instead of three.

I've come to this format to seek what people think about abortion. Abortion is one issue where I truly don't understand a litany of arguments and so part of this is me arguing to understand them better. I'll lay out my arguments and we can go through the rounds from there, no too strict of a structure is necessary.

I think this debate comes down to two statements.

1. Conception is the beginning of life.
Scientifically speaking, it is no doubt that conception is the point at which life begins. This is simply a proven and indisputable fact. But even if, lets say, it was not. Let's say that, instead, we in fact did not know where life began. I would still argue that its best to assume conception is where life begins. Any other point would be arbitrary and cause many ethically questionable situations (some examples: 1) heartbeat - are adults that rely on pacemakers not lives? 2) brain activity - are adults that are brain-dead not lives? 3) 'consciousness' - loose term, and what about individuals in comas?)

2. Murder is the purposeful, premeditated killing of an innocent life or a life that poses an immediate harm to another. Murder is ALWAYS wrong.
At some point, we have to make certain ethical assertions. I think this is a logical understanding of murder. Another important point is that murder is unjustifiable, i.e. it is always wrong.

That's it. That's the crux of my argument. I don't understand how people can justify abortion in any context if these two statements are true. I also don't know what the alternative to either of these statements is.

This provides a clear image of what I am PRO-ing:
Abortion is wrong in the vast majority of contexts. The only context in which is is acceptable is one where delivery would risk lethal harm.


In a way, you maybe correct when you say "conception is the bigging of life". If it is, Its only the bigging of "a life" as opposed to the begging of all life so it s not necessarily wrong if someone stops this bigging of one life to promote the wellfare of lives that are already here . Almost everybody accepts this when we use contraceptives . It is the right thing to do because we understand the paramount importance of having controll of how many children we will have and the times we will have them.

You also mentioned "murder is unjustifiable" well I do not think that orbartion is the same thing as murder but either way, some murders which are infact justified. these are murders commited for the sole purpose of preventing greater harm of innocent people . Our justice systems rate murders and dose not have the same penalt for all murders because they are not all necessary necessaryly wrong or unjustifiable
Debate Round No. 1


In the CON's first response, most of my arguments seem to stand with high risk as the mitigation was quite weak.

Firstly, the CON essentially concedes that "Its only the beginning* of 'a life'. The CON makes a distinction that this is "opposed to the beginning* of all life so it is* not necessarily wrong if someone stops this beginning* of one life." However I would respond by saying:
1. This doesn't make much sense. If it is the beginning of a life vs. all life is irrelevant, so long as we start from the premise that all human lives should be valued equally.
2. It is the beginning of all life. You made this assertion, but it is simply wrong.
3. You have not provided an alternative "beginning of all life." If you provide your opinion as to where life begins in your next round, then we can perhaps debate about that specific instance. However, you have not suggested any different point at which life begins, which means it is best to go with the only consistent option on the table, at conception.

Secondly, the CON makes the argument that we accept this when we use contraceptives we are doing essentially the same thing. I respond by saying:
1. This does not apply. Contraception is okay because it is not the termination of life. Basic biology can tell you that contraception takes effect BEFORE conception ever happens. This is unique because no life is ever created in the first place. This is very different from the scenario of abortion, which is the active termination of an already existent life. This is a pretty clear bright-line.

Thirdly, the CON makes the argument that it is right because it is important to control how and when we have children. I respond by saying:
1. This does not justify killing a life. Let's say you had a child and then the 2008 recession hit, and posed massive burdens on your family to the point where it was unsustainable to continue supporting your child's life. This doesn't somehow give you the right to kill him/her.
2. This can be done by being more careful about having sex. Unfortunately it is a very risky endeavor, so for many it could be unexpected. However, this doesn't somehow make it okay.

Now the CON moves on to respond the arguments I made concerning murder.

Firstly, I think its extremely important to extend my interpretation of what murder is, because it seems that CON is attacking the wrong idea. There is an important distinction between 'murder' and 'killing'. That distinction is 'murder' evokes a sense of ethical responsibility, which makes it bad. Whereas, 'killing' can sometimes be justified. This is how I defined murder in my first speech. I said: "Murder is the purposeful, premeditated killing of an innocent life or a life that DOES NOT (I now realize I left those two important words out, but I'm sure you all understand that they should'e been there given the rest of the context in the sentence) pose an immediate harm to another. Murder is ALWAYS wrong." This definition shows that its okay to kill an individual like Hitler, or kill in self-defense, as these would not be classified as murder and don't evoke the same sense of ethical problem.

Secondly, you're only true response of my argument is the couple of words you say: "well I do not think that abortion is the same thing as murder but ...". In your future rounds, I implore you to elaborate here or at least provide a counter-definition of either 'murder' or 'killing'. If we establish that life begins at conception and murder is taking of an innocent life. Then abortion would clearly fall under the term, 'murder'.

Thirdly, it is true that our justice system rates 'murders'. However, I would argue that it actually rates 'killings'. This is why the three highest punishments are called: "First Degree Murder", "Felony Murder", and "Second Degree Murder". Notice how they all use the term murder, because it evokes that sense of ethical problem. However, the lesser ratings of killing are not really considered murder at all, but some level of punishment is still necessary, so the term "Homicide" or "Manslaughter" is used instead. The lowest rating is actually "Justifiable Homicide", which in fact has no punishment whatsoever.

Overall, it seems the CON has replied sparsely providing general defense to both my points, but not going too in depth on anyone specifically. Perhaps the most important thing for the CON to do in the next round is to tell me where CON believes a life begins. Until then, CON's argument can logically not make sense.

*-I usually used an asterisk to denote that I fixed the spelling in a quotation from CON.


I made the distinction between the "bigging of all life" and that of "one life" for you to help you realize that arbotions dose not really threaten our lives or life in general .

You said you can't make sence of this because all human life should be valued the same. We can value human lives the same amoung human lives, or human embryo lives amoung human embryo lives. However a human embryo life is not the same as a person's life. A person's life is way more valuable to us than a fetus's. Thats one reason why orbartion is not the same as murder and why most people will opt to arbort whenever they have to choose between their wellfere and that at their fetus's. So with this ,sorry but we can not start with the premise that a person's life is equal to that of a fetus.
I never made any assertions about what the bigging of all life is. I simply pointed out that conception is not the bigging of all life so its no big deal if stopped. You asked me for an alternative "bigging of all life" , this I think is irrelevant to this debate. If you meant the biggining of human life ,my answer is that I do not know any point when it starts because human life is a cycle. At the earliest stages human embryos looks nothing like a human being but all the other marmal embryos. They do not have most of the characteristics that distinguish them from the rest of the animals yet. They will continue to develop throughout the cycle slowly developing attributes that will make them complete human beings with human characteristics.

Your example about killing a child because of family hardships demonstrates that you misunderstood a very important point and a key factor on this issue which is ,"birth control ". This is nothing like murdering a person to evade responsibility as your example implies . Birth control is more valuable to humans than a single birth is. It is directly linked to the quality of our lives and our environment so this is whats really matters here. We do have some ways to help us get this control e.g. use of contraceptives and positive behavior to avoid pregnancies but these can fail. Abortion is the final and ultimate chance we get to really control birth because it decides weather or not there will be a birth.

About murder. Murder is the unlawfull premeditated killing of a human being by another human being. It is arguably the worst crime one can inflict on another and this is all for very good reasons. When you kill someone you end their consciusness this usually maximize human suffering because you would have
-distroyed their memories forever and may inflict pain and distress on them in the process
-remove them from loved ones forever
-deny them potential experiences and fortunes.
And you will hurt or distroy their cause in life.
These are reasons why murder is so terrible
Most of my reasons for not accepting that abortion is the same thing as murder have to do with why murder is wrong in the first place.

1 Embryos are not conscious
2 Embryos do not show signs of feeling pain until around the 27th week so they will not suffer like a person might suffer during a murder.
3 Embryos have not yet made the kind of connections and relationships with a lot of loved ones so their demise will not affect as many people

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
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Darth_Unicorns 3 years ago
The thing is, if you "kill" an embryo, it will never feel anything and therefore rarely cause too many bad consequences. If you allowed the baby to be born then a person may struggle badly with the child and not be able to support him/her properly. This would make things worse for the child than ever becoming conscious as they have to live through it and had they have been aborted(I think that is the correct verb) they would never feel the bad consequences. This also affects family members and friends etc.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
"I think this debate comes down to two statements."
Pregnancy abortion comes down to one statement, and the questions that statement raises. The one question: Is Pregnancy Abortion an admission to murder?

1.Any discussion associated to the discussion of Pregnancy abortion contains at least one alibi.
2.The State that is shared between both sides of the debate is always murder.
3.Is officially stopping a life detailing murder in an intellectual way?
4.There are possibly two crimes taking place. One: Fraud, Second: Murder. Only the murder is confessed yet both crimes are shared by self-incrimination with the public and all woman.

When human life begins does not matter and answers would be different if the self-incrimination is removed from the admission meaning no crime is self-described to others. The question is does Pregnancy abortion translate to an admission to a crime? Did the admission need to take place? Can pregnancy abortion be described as Female Specific Amputation by United States Constitution as well as Hippocratic Oath?
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
Honestly the only context to which pregnancy abortion is legally applied is as a religious confession to a priest. This is because the priest is offering absolution in a sin seen as an act against a religion. Any medical context to the use of Pregnancy abortion is a violation of not only the Hippocratic Oath. Law as well. While in turn tricking the medical doctor into admitting an understanding the life was curtain without any medical intervention. This also is not true as a United State.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
You are not really addressing the Constitutional legal argument. What is describe is a staged idea of why Pregnancy abortion was believed unconstitutional as murder. Not the fact it is an admission to murder.

1. Conception is the beginning of life. The admission to murder can take place before or after a life starts.
2. The admission is also detailing life has been witnessed by the person making the confession to have officially started.
3. There is never any reason given to justify that all woman must admit to a crime. Let children and men as well.
4. There is never an alibi for the public asked to participate in the admitted crime.
5. A witness can just as easily say a woman or doctor has lied about the Pregnancy abortion. The process must have been a female specific amputation.
6. Bringing a group of people together under a United State of crime, is not just immoral itself, it is also a crime.
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.