The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Abortion should be Illegal in cases that do not threaten the life of the mother/baby

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/29/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,635 times Debate No: 59720
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)




I recently read your debate on abortion, and I'd like to argue this with you. Since I couldn't PM you or comment on your profile, I decided to just challenge you on it. You don't have to accept, and if you have any questions you can post on my profile or PM me. I'll lay out the debate structure in case you decide to head straight into acceptance:


1) Acceptance Only
2) Opening Arguments (No rebuttals)
3) Rebuttals
4) Closing Arguments/Final Rebuttals

There will be a 4,000 character limit and a 48 hour debating period. I wish to keep this debate from being extremely long winded. For reference, the country up for discussion is the United States of America. Thanks in advance to my opponent, should he choose to accept this debate.


DDO mechanics - In order to message a user or comment on his profile, one first needs to send friend request and have their request accepted.

If my opponent can really write 4k characters of pure arguments/rebuttals, I see no reason to ask for lower character limit.
If my opponent starts posting links and graphs that back up premises I did not challenge, long appeals to emotions, or stories in place of arguments, I will not bother reading, even when it would be harmful to my chance of winning.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate.

Introduction of Case:
Abortion Should Be Illegal in the United States of America, barring a few special circumstances. This is comparable to medicinal vs. recreational marijuana. Abortion should only be needed in cases of medical necessity rather than because a child is not wanted.

I'll open with an outline of my argument, then in later rounds defend the premises that my opponent attacks.

P1. A fetus will become a human child if not aborted.
1)There is no chance for it to become anything else, nor for it not to become a human child if uninterrupted by unnatural forces. Therefore, no matter whether this fetus is yet a "person" or not, it undebatably will become a person, as all healthy fetuses do.

P2. Human Children, under the Declaration of Independence, have an unalienable right to life
1) The Declaration of Independence, arguably the document that best embodies the Spirit of America, states that the human right to life is unalienable [1].

C1. By aborting a fetus in full knowledge that it will become a human being at any point, you are stripping it of its human right to life
1) That fetus will unequivocally at some point become human. Whether the human life began at conception or will shortly begin, you are ending a human life that would definitely exist. If the fetus was healthy, there was no chance for that life not to exist. Therefore, from a logical standpoint, you are stripping the child of its future or present right to life, a right it will undeniably have.

Plus, there's no need logical for abortion:

A Major Alternative to abortion: Adoption

-The mother still does not need to keep the baby.
-Cheaper. Abortions can cost thousands of dollars, while adoptions are free [2].
-Much Less Chance of Emotional scarring for the mother [2].
-Safer. Abortions can be incomplete, cause blood clots, torn cervixes, infections, future pregnancy complications, etc. [3].

Therefore, abortion violates American rights and should be illegal. Adoption is a better, safer and more legal way to deal with an unwanted baby. Thank you.



Legend: If statement is named p1.1 it means it is a premise which follows from p1
If statement is named c(p1+p2) it means it is a conclusion made from p1 and p2

1) p1: Fetus is inside of woman's body. p2: Everyone owns themselves. c1(p1+p2): Women has a right to throw the fetus out of her. p3: Even if it wasn't caused a smallest harm during its removal, fetus will still die when removed from woman's body. c2(c1+p3): By abortion. woman is not killing fetus, she is only removing it from her body.

2) p1: Fetus is taking food from woman. p2: Taking something from person without their consent is theft. c1(p1+p2): If woman doesn't want to give her food to fetus, it is stealing from her. p3: Theft ought to be punished. c2(c1+p3): Unwanted fetus ought to be aborted. p4: Further thefts ought to be prevented if possible. c2(c1+p4)

3) p1: Removing unwanted fetuses from women reduces number of people. p2: US has already much unemployed people c1(p1+p2): By allowing abortion, we are decreasing unemployment p3: There are many Americans who dislike unemployment. c2(c1+p3): Allowing abortion is beneficial to many Americans.

4) p1: Even if abortion was illegal, some woman would still abort. p1.1: Some women would get caught by police. c1(p1+p1.1): Some women would end up in prison because abortion was illegal. p2: Those women do not want to go to prison c2(c1+ p2): Making abortion illegal is harmful to some women. p1.2: Some of these women would abort in worse circumstances, with their health at greater risk. p3: Those women do not want their health at risk. c2(p1.2+p3)
p1.3 Some of those women would travel to foreign country, in order to abort. c3(p1.3): Their fetuses would not benefit from abortion being illegal, and those women would waste their money.
Debate Round No. 2


Thanks to my opponent for the argument.


1) By that logic, yes, a woman has the right to "throw a fetus out of her." Unfortunately, that logic isn't sound. If we have full body autonomy and are allowed to do whatever with the bodies we own, then a pregnant woman who does not wish to abort can go out drinking every night, smoke, do drugs, etc. because it is her body. If anyone can do whatever they want with their body they could abort at any stage of a pregnancy, because the baby is always part of their body until it is born. They could refuse to take children to the doctor because they don't wish to use their bodies to drive. They could refuse to buy their children food. This also allows for public indecency, such as public sex or masturbation, because they can do whatever they want with their bodies [1]. Almost all things can be argued under the "everyone owns themselves" argument, but it doesn't mean they are morally permissible or law-abiding.

In rebuttal to c2:
p1. Woman is consciously choosing to remove fetus from womb
p2. This action will unequivocally subsequently cause death of fetus
c1. Woman is killing fetus

Further rebuttals:
2) This logic by my opponent is also flawed. Theft requires making a conscious decision to steal. The fetus is not making a conscious decision but rather thriving from natural order. It cannot choose not to take the food. It does not choose TO take the food. It is therefore not operating of its own free will or consciousness to "steal" the food, and should not be punished.

3) In rebuttal to this, I'll give an analogy

p1. Widespread murder reduces the number of people
p2. The US has a lot of unemployed people
c1. By allowing murder, we'd be decreasing the amount of unemployment

4) By this logic:
p1. Heroin is illegal
p1.1. People buy and take heroin anyway
c1 (p1 + p1.1) Some of these people get caught by police and put in prison
p2. These people don't want to go to prison
c2 (p1 + p2) The illegalization of heroin is harming people

You could plug in murder, prostitution, any number of illegal drugs, rape, etc. into this logic and it "works". "If my opponent's logic is valid in all of these situations, we would need to overturn a LOT of US Laws in order to ban abortion. These laws are beneficial to our nation.

My opponent here basically concedes that adoption is a better alternative to abortion. He claims that causing more health problems and being more expensive is a detriment to women. Therefore, by this logic, adoption is much better than abortion, as it causes far less health problems and is cheaper. If adoption was encouraged and abortion illegalized, sure, some people would still get abortions. This is the same as some people who murder, rape, steal, etc. But it would be beneficial to illegalize abortion, saving lives and money.

My opponent seems to want to run around in a lawless country. Laws are put in place so that harm is not caused to the people. Abortion causes harm to the lives of babies, as well as harm to mothers oftentimes. Adoption does not. Therefore, to protect people and their rights, abortion should be illegal.



Since Round 3 is Rebuttals, and rebuttals of rebuttals are rebuttals, I will make rebuttals for both my opponent's argument and my opponent's rebuttals.

I am challenging both my opponent's P1. and C1.

If fetus is not aborted, it can still possibly die before it becomes a child (child - a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority). Therefore my opponent's P1. is false.

Assuming we replace word "any" with "some" in my opponent's C1, because otherwise it doesn't even make sense:
p1: If something doesn't have human rights, it is impossible to strip it of its human rights.
p2:Even if the one aborting the fetus knew for sure that without abortion fetus will become a child (which can not be the case), p1 is not violated.

By aborting unborn fetus, one could be stripping it of gaining human rights, but this is not an issue.

Analogy: PhD can make lectures on university in Serbia. I have great potential of becoming PhD, but for some reason, those crazy people wont let me make lectures on university!

I shall know refute my opponent's supposed rebuttals:

1) I am challenging premise "a pregnant woman who does not wish to abort can go out drinking every night, smoke, do drugs, etc. because it is her body".

Regardless if woman is pregnant or not, she could do listed stuff if it wasn't doing any harm to other humans, which is not the case here. Smoke is inhaled by all humans in same room, so she can smoke as much as she likes only in some conditions. She can not however, do drugs(except legal ones), because they are forbidden by the laws, and taxpayers originally agreed upon paying taxes in order for government to punish those who break law (this at least happened in John Locke's mind), therefore other citizens obviously do not want anyone to break law. Therefore, people do harm to other people by breaking the law.

I am asking my opponent to agree upon replacing "child" with "fetus" in his statement statement "They could refuse to take children to the doctor because they don't wish to use their bodies to drive. They could refuse to buy their children food", in order for it to make sense (in this debate).

But nothing in my opponent's long paragraph is refuting my arguments, it seems like an appeal to emotions to me.

rebuttal of c2 depends all on how we define killing. By my opponent's definition, government is killing almost all people, by not providing them best possible medication.

My opponent's 2) is valid rebuttal. Its pure semantics, and issue still stands, but since I am not allowed by debate format to reword it, my argument 2) ought to be disbanded.

My opponent's 3) does not refute anything I stated. If my opponent is asking why we don't allow widespread murder, I shall answer "Because murder would violate human rights."

My opponent's 4) does not refute any of my statements, however, I will give friendly explanation:
In my opponent's 4), c2 is true, but legalization of heroin is harming people more than illegalization would. That is why we are keeping it illegal.

I am challenging my opponent's premise "we would need to overturn a LOT of US Laws in order to ban abortion" by asking for proof (since burden is on my opponent for this statement).

Adoption can not be alternative to abortion because abortion can only occur before birth and adoption can only occur after birth. Therefore, my opponent's entire PART II doesn't make any sense.

I am appealing to my opponent to keep debate friendly, as I find statement "My opponent seems to want to run around in a lawless country" to be an insult.
Debate Round No. 3



p1. I stated in p1 that I was referring to healthy fetuses. Yes, an unhealthy baby can die of natural causes before this. However, since the right to life comes from nature (as man cannot create an unalienable right), and since my opponent has agreed this right is unalienable, then only natural causes can remove this right. Man cannot remove a right he did not give to begin with.

c1. Rebuttal:
p1. By nature, a healthy fetus will become a baby
p2. By nature, a baby has a right to life
c1. Therefore, a fetus has a RIGHT to a right to life

My opponent's analogy is false. Societal standards and natural standards are incomparable. The right to life is unalienable by natural standards. The right to give lectures as a PhD can be retracted by the Serbian campus, as this right is not unalienable. My opponent could choose not to become a PhD, could drop out of school, decide to pursue a Master's degree, etc. A baby can become nothing but a baby or dead. Therefore, since it cannot NOT become a person, the right to life cannot be taken away by people. Even assuming that all of the above is false (which it isn't), the analogy doesn't quite work. A more accurate analogy would be that the Serbian campus arbitrarily denied my opponent the right to ever give lectures, regardless of the fact that he soon would have his PhD, although all other PhD's are allowed to speak on campus. This is an imperfect analogy, but it's better.

Further Rebuttals

1) My opponent defies his own logic here. By drinking and smoking while pregnant, the woman will most likely give birth to a deformed or otherwise disabled child [1]. This child will unequivocally be a human being. Therefore this human was harmed by his mothers actions, something my opponent states he wishes not to happen.

My opponent drops the public masturbation/sex rebuttal. This rebuttal is an example of a use of body autonomy that does not "harm" other people but still wrong. If my opponent cites it as psychological harm, abortion causes trauma as well [2]. Therefore my opponent's logic is flawed. Furthermore, abortion CAN harm people, both mother and child, as already demonstrated.

2) Point conceded by my opponent.

3) I was pointing out a flaw in my opponent's logic. Reduction of an unemployment rate doesn't make something a good idea when it harms people, as my opponent proved by condemning murder.

4) Prior to Roe v. Wade, although abortion was surely less safe (with much less technology), only about 1,000 abortions occurred each year [3]. Now, as it is legal, over 1 million abortions occur per year [3]. Although the percentage of people being harmed was higher, the numbers harmed, which my opponent seems to have more interest in, are higher now, in both psychological and physical harm as well as plenty more lives being ended and more rights stripped. In addition, 58% of Americans disagree with abortion, so it harms the majority of people morally[4].

I was stating that using your previous logic, many laws could be overturned. However, with the "don't harm others" addendum, fewer need be overturned, but flaws still remain concerning abortion.

Adoption IS an alternative to abortion. Both follow the same logic for the situation of an unwanted baby, with one premise change. They are alternatives. The crucial difference is life vs. death, human rights preserved vs. destroyed.

p1. Mother cannot keep baby
p2. Mother kills baby
c1. Unwanted baby is gone

p1. Mother cannot keep baby
p2. Mother gives baby away
c1. Unwanted baby is gone

I apologize for the comment cited by my opponent, it was not intended as an insult, but I too wish to keep this debate friendly.

Abortion should be illegal because of its violation of the rights of future American citizens. Americans cannot decide to strip these rights, as they were not given by Americans but by nature and nature's God. Thanks to my opponent for the debate.

Sources will be in the comments.


healthy" is not Boolean value. It is on scale. Fetus can be born blind and deaf, or with finger missing, or with weak heart, or with low level of chromosomes. Who is to say if baby is healthy or not?

I never agreed there is natural right. This is a bald face lie. In fact, I am saying concept of natural rights is fallacious almost on daily basis.

We can have a debate about natural rights if my opponent wants, I will for now just ignore all statements with "natural rights", because my opponent has not given valid definition and I claim that there is no valid definition.

1) By my logic, society should only protect its members, while they are its members. Even if someone would almost certainly become member of society, society is not mandatory to try to protect him as long as he is not a member.

Abortion can cause physical harm, but society should not try to prevent individuals from harming themselves. Only from harming others, who are not consenting to being physically harmed.

2) I did not concede, I made argument why my opponent's definition is worse than mine.

3) My opponent has called my logic flawed, but of course, has not pointed out any my mistake. I never said reduction of unemployment rate makes something a good idea when it harms people (more than it benefits).
Reduction of unemployment is good, and we should reduce unemployment with all means that do not cause greater harm.

4) Society is regulating physical harm. Not moral harm. Even if small majority of people declare themselves as pro-life, vast majority of people believes in principle of liberty, which is violated by forcing women to bare fetuses.

By my opponent's logic (on adoption), retirement home is alternative to elementary schools. Both are dealing with same issue (where should people spend their time), with one premise change.

Women who abort, do not want to bare fetus. By adoption, unwanted fetus is not gone.

Future citizens do not and should not have a rights that citizens do.

Conclusion: I rebutted my opponent's only original argument in both P1 and C1.
My arguments: 1) c1 stands, c2 stands if my definition of killing is better.
2) is rebutted by semantics.
3) c1 is stair to c2, c2 stands.
4) c1 is step to c2, c2 stands, c3 stands.

If voters disagree with some item of my conclusion, I ask them to cite my opponent's statement that refutes the particular listed item (if any).
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
BTW: I've seen some pretty distressing attempts by couples and women to get rid of their unwanted child, even when the adoption option was available.
Most women I have met would refuse to carry a baby to term that they did not want, especially if it is a product of a rape.
I've know couples who have died trying to jump off abortion hill, on the back of motorcycles, as that was the way many motorcycle gang members helped women abort unwanted fetuses.

Also the illegal backyard abortionists were doing great business.
Women were getting septicemia and dying because of such operations.
Making abortions illegal is a Backward Archaic and Stupid move.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
Since Abortions were legalized, crime statistics have been steadily declining in the age groups 14 to 25, which is the prime age group for committing crimes.
Some anthropologists suggest that there are less of these now having to care for or supporting illegitimate children. As young mothers who had been raped before abortions were legalized were often of the low socioeconomic classes and committed petty crimes to care for their unwanted children as often they could not simply get them adopted.
Though more recent studies are showing that crime statistics are improving in the present, because there are less Unwanted teens and young adults existing in our community and being known that they were unwanted by their birth mother, creates a form of depression that often leads to them committing serious crimes.
So such crimes appear to be dropping due to there being less unwanted youth within the communities where abortions are legalized.

Possibly adopting them out has failed as the children when reaching their youth, often understand that they were not wanted by their birth mother and thus sense a feeling of rejection, for all of their lives.
This has been demonstrated as assisting in producing criminal tendencies or antisocial attitudes, that lead to them committing crimes.
Posted by Cold-Mind 7 years ago
@Sagey I don't see why. It is impossible to prove causal relation between crime statistics and abortions being allowed.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
Wonder if Con will mention the changes in Crime statistics since Abortions have been allowed?
Posted by Phoenix61397 7 years ago
Sentience is the ability to feel or sense. Grass doesn't have a nervous system, and therefore cannot feel and sense. In addition, relegating all adopted people into the position of stupid, street driven children is offensive and incorrect. I have friends who are adopted. I'm sure they'd much rather be adopted than aborted. I'd love to hear your opinions on the topic, but please refrain from offensive comments like that.
Posted by Aerogant 7 years ago
Grass is sentient, as it reacts to movement and music.

You say the fetus has rights in spite of its earlier stages of life being irrelevant to human life - and that sending a new born to a terrible last resort for children is one of the reasons why this world is full of stupid, street-driven children.
Posted by Phoenix61397 7 years ago
That logic makes no sense in relation to this debate. First, sentience is not the key point here, humanity is. Second, grass isn't sentient. I also feel as though sentience is more important than consciousness in an abortion debate, though I argued neither.
Posted by Aerogant 7 years ago
Not C N O, I mean P O R.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins the argument on the principle that women will be having illegal abortions and likely do more damage to themselves if abortions were made illegal. Pro's adoption concept would fail. Pro gets points on having sources to back his argument up.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 7 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro better defended a fetus as (potential) human, and both agreed on human rights, making this murder.

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