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

Abortion is wrong

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: 4/2/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 993 times Debate No: 72818
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




Life starts at conception. This is the definition given in any respectable medical textbook. "To declare a beginning of life at any point after the fusing of a wife"s egg and a husband"s contribution is irrational and an exercise in sophistic chicanery. Only machines such as clocks and cars come into existence part by part. Living beings come into existence all at once and gradually unfold their world of innate potential. A living human person begins to exist at the moment of conception, even though only as a cell. What is important is not the accident of size or weight but the essence " which is fully human. The unborn baby has a distinct, unchanging and unrepeatable genetic code, unique in all of history, from the moment of conception till death. Nothing is added except nutrition and oxygen." Performing an abortion is killing a human making the doctor a murderer


Before presenting my argumentation, I would like to say a few words about why abortion isn't murder.

"If it is defined neutrally, in medical terms, an "abortion" must be described as "the intentional termination of a pregnancy." Nothing more, nothing less. Anything beyond that definition is an assumption or a conclusion which must be argued for, and which should not be used as a premise!
Most people are not philosophers or ethicists; and so they do not begin with definitions. The result, unfortunately, is that their discussion deteriorates into shouting matches, logic becomes overwhelmed by rhetoric, tempers flare, and nothing constructive gets accomplished
In our society, "murder" is something no one condones, everyone condemns, and all of us want to prevent. Labeling any action "murder" cannot start a discussion; it can only end debate. If abortion turns out to be "murder," the debate is over, the case is closed, and Roe vs. Wade is not only irrelevant, but unacceptable." (source
Debate Round No. 1


A women can do what she wants with her body but it is not her body it is the babies. If you examine photos from abortions you can see at 8 weeks a babies body forms( and if abortions go on they violate our 14th amendments.

1) Murder is illegal.

Murder is the "unlawful killing of a human being" with some level of intent. California law includes "a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature."

The only thing preventing abortion from being included in the definition of murder is that it"s currently not "unlawful." But basic science proves that an unborn child is a "human being." No mention of "personhood" is necessary for basic murder definitions. Killing a "human being" or a "fellow creature," even, is enough.

Why, as a society, do we pick and choose human beings whom we can deliberately kill? These human beings are fully human, entirely innocent, and helpless and voiceless. Yet we purposely target them, setting very few restrictions on their killings.

Is there any other class of human beings that our society will make it "lawful" to kill? Belgium is already on the path to extending legal murder through its legalization of euthanasia " even child euthanasia. History shows that Nazi Germany, once it began to legalize the murder of human beings, simply continued down the path " the elderly, the sick, the disabled, gypsies, homosexuals, the Jews, those who defended the Jews. Where would it have stopped?

This is why abortion must be illegal if murder is illegal. It should never be "lawful" to kill any innocent human being.

2) The 14th Amendment was designed to protect classes of people like the unborn.

At the time the 14th Amendment was adopted, abortion was already illegal or being made illegal throughout the nation.

The criminalization of abortion accelerated during the 1860s, and by 1900 it was generally considered a felony in every state.

Thus, there was no reason for Congress to specifically discuss the unborn in their debate on the 14th Amendment. The unborn were already a protected class in the U.S.

However, during the debate on the 14th Amendment, Senate Sponsor Jacob Howard explained that it was essential for every man (or human being) to be equal in regard to the basic right to life:

I urge the amendment for the enforcement of these essential provisions of your Constitution, divine in their justice, sublime in their humanity, which declare that all men are equal in the rights of life and liberty before the majesty of American law.

Senator Howard also stated:

It establishes equality before the law, and it gives to the humblest, the poorest, the most despised of the race the same rights and the same protection before the law as it gives to the most powerful, the most wealthy, or the most haughty.

House sponsor John Bingham further explained the intent when he argued, as Robert C. Cetrulo writes, that "the Amendment was intended to be "universal" and to apply to "any human being." Fourteenth Amendment rights were intended not only to "pertain to American citizenship but also to common humanity.'"

3) Federal laws already protect the unborn.

Justice requires our laws to be consistent.
The law on the death penalty and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act are prime examples.

Federal law prohibits the death penalty for pregnant women until they give birth. (18 U.S.C.A. S.3596) In essence, the law declared that an innocent unborn person cannot be sentenced and put to death for a crime he did not commit. If the unborn child were not seen as a person in the eyes of the law, there would be no need for this prohibition.

Common law typically prohibited the execution of a pregnant woman until birth, though its prohibition was not even as strong as the current federal law. The U.S. Supreme Court (in Union P. R. Co. v. Botsford) explained the purpose of the common law doctrine: "to guard against the taking of the life of an unborn child for the crime of the mother." Inconsistently, the Court calls the unborn child a "child" and yet refuses to recognize her as a person.

It"s wrong for a mother to have the right to kill her children. True feminists realize that our power doesn"t come through the blood of our children.

The UVVA specifically prohibits the killing of unborn children, defining them as follows:

" a child in utero, and the term "child in utero" or "child, who is in utero" means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

And yet, even with this powerful definition, the law makes exceptions for mothers to give permission for their children to be killed.

How contradictory, tragic, and wrong.


badassrookie forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


At a point in a pregnancy it is not about a woman body anymore, it becomes a babies body ( at week 8) and a woman body therefore when aborting a body it is killing a living organism that grows which I believe it is called murder.


badassrookie forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by kman100 3 years ago
So apparently abortion is wrong because each fetus has its distinct genetic code. You know what also has its own unique DNA? Sperm. Every single sperm has its own unique DNA. Is killing sperm wrong too?
Posted by elvroin_vonn_trazem 3 years ago
If you visit the blog at fightforsense (dot) wordpress (dot) com, you will find a long list of excuses used by abortion opponents to oppose abortion --every one of which is thoroughly trashed. They have NO valid arguments in this day-and-age, mostly because they don't actually know what they are talking about.
Posted by PrinceSheogorath 3 years ago
A fetus becomes a person once it becomes viable. It becomes viable when it could survive outside the mothers womb under normal conditions which is usually 24 weeks into the pregnancy. And this is not based on opinion, but scientific fact. For as long as the fetus is dependent on the mother, it is her decision as to what to do with it whether it be to not interfere with its growth or to abort it by preventing its development. Abortion provides a multiple of benefits to society: it could save the life of the mother who is carrying the developing fetus; it could prevent the birth of babies from the result of rape; it could prevent immature (mentally) parents from raising a child they might not otherwise be able to financially commit to; it gives people an opportunity to reconsider a decision they made that would have a substantial effect on their lives without depriving another person of their rights. Now, you can make an argument as to when the cutoff point for the abortion would be (with it traditionally being before the 30 week mark) but to call the whole concept of abortion "murder" is quite frankly both ignorant in scientific terms and legal terms.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 4God 3 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 Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff