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

Abortion should be illegal

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,558 times Debate No: 101927
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)




I'd like to start off by saying I appreciate any time that anyone gives to this whether as a judge or an opponent for this debate.
I will be representing the Pro position and arguing that "Abortion should be illegal."

1) No ad hominem (personal attacks)
2) No forfeiting rounds
3) Must have completed at least one other debate

Debate format:
Round 1- Acceptance and state stances (No reasons or arguments)
Round 2- Opening arguments (No rebuttals)
Round 3- Rebuttals
Round 4- Final rebuttals and conclusions

Pro stance: I am referring to abortions as the deliberate termination of a viable pregnancy and am not referring to instances where the fetus/embryo displays lethal developmental problems or is already dead. I am arguing that the US federal government should immediately make illegal the practice of abortions of any kind and for any reason except in the instance of danger to the mother.


I have been painfully waiting for an intellectual discourse since I've entered this site. The last three debates that I had were all forfeited. I hope neither of us will do the same.

I will be arguing the notion that abortion ought to be legal.

Let us have a thorough and interesting exchange of intellectual thought until the end. I wish you luck
Debate Round No. 1


First of all, thank you nuevo for accepting this debate. I feel your pain as my last 3 debates have been equally fruitless due to my opponent forfeiting on the second round each time.
Now as for your stance I would ask that you clarify as to what/if any restrictions you think there should be. Specifically, what time frame in which you think should be legal and if there are any methods or reasons you are opposed to.

Relevant definitions-
Abortion: Also called voluntary abortion the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. (1)
Murder: The killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law (2)

My opening argument:
Abortion is indistinguishable from murder. Therefore, I am arguing against abortions of any kind and for any reason except in the instance of danger to the mother.

Instances of rape do not justify abortion-
Some people may say, "What about cases of rape?" Rape is a special case and makes up a very small fraction of abortions. In fact, in the U.S. instances of rape are involved in less than 2% of abortions. However, say you don't have an abortion, and every time you look at your daughter you think about that horrible moment when you were raped. Would you say that it is not murder or ok to kill that toddler? Of course not. So why would you kill that same baby before they are born? That being said, on a personal note, I would be willing to compromise and make an exception for victims of rape just to save the other 98% but something tells me those on the pro-choice wouldn't be willing to make that compromise. Therefore it is irrelevant because it is simply a deflection and has no bearing on the opinion of those using it as justification.

Being anti-abortion is not sexist or authoritarian-
I believe that many things should be legal even though they go against my core values as a religious person. I don't care what others choose to do so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. I am not looking to impose my religious beliefs on others or reinforce patriarchal dominance over a woman's body. Now, this is where I have an issue with abortion, the government has not only a right, but a responsibility to protect human lives under the constitution. I believe that at conception an embryo is its own human life deserving of its own individual rights that ought not be infringed by anyone even the mother who carries it. Perhaps one of the worst talking points I have heard on the "pro-choice" side is that whether or not to have an a abortion is a deeply personal decision and should be left between the woman and her doctor. This is evil. The government should have a definition for human life if it promises to protect it. Individuals should not be allowed to determine what is and isn't a human being. Similar "logic" was used to justify slavery in the US. Certain individuals decided that other people shouldn't be considered human beings or granted human rights based on personal feelings and for convenience. A human being is not a subjective concept that changes based on a someone else's desire to afford a car or have more free time or to have a baby with a different gender. A human being is a living, growing being that can and ought to be scientifically defined and governmentally protected.

Abortion is killing a whole, distinct, living organism-
It is an indisputable and basic biological fact. There are 7 scientific qualifications for life: It must maintain homeostasis, be composed of cells, undergo metabolism, have capacity for growth, have the ability to adapt to the environment, be able to respond to stimuli, and have the capacity to reproduce. (3) An embryo meets all these criteria. But many things are considered organisms that aren't guaranteed life which brings us to the next point we must consider.

Abortion kills human life-
We have established that abortion kills an organism. Now the question is whether or not that organism is human. To answer that we must look at how each species is defined. Luckily, nature has already placed very specific labels in the cells of all living things. From conception, if we were able to test the DNA of the fertilized cell we would find that it has human DNA. Not only does it have human DNA, but it has DNA that is clearly separate from that of his/her mother. It's sex will already have been determined as well as it's eye color, hair color, etc. Just because it is at a different stage of development does not mean it is any less human.

Abortion kills a human being (aka an individual, living human, organism)-
When we combine my last 2 points we find that abortion takes the life of a distinct, human organism. This means that abortion and murder are indistinguishable and that abortion is a specific form of murder that takes place prior to birth (or during in the case of partial birth abortion). So the question becomes is this murder somehow justifiable? I would argue that there is no justification and I'll carefully go through the differences between abortion and other forms of murder.

The 3 differences between killing an unborn baby and other human beings are: A) Level of Development, B) Environment, and C) Degree of Dependence.

A) Level of Development- A newborn baby is usually more developed than an unborn baby. Think of a human life on a timeline and say someone is 20 years old. They are the same person as when they were 10 years old even though their physical structure is different. They will also be the same person when they are 80 (assuming they live until then). Their physical structure and even their cells are different, but they are the same person. When they were in their mother's womb, they were still the same person. As humans our cell(s), physical appearance, build, etc. change over time based on our level of development. However, you are still you. Level of development does not change who the person is or whether or not they are a person. They are still the same person deserving of the same rights. Therefore an individual's level of development does not justify abortion.

2) Environment- A baby out of the womb cannot be killed, but a baby in the womb can be. Why would it's location in the womb diminish the baby's personhood? Say you were born in Oregon, but moved to Virginia. Changing your environment did not change your value. It is not suddenly fine to kill you because you moved. Why is it that way for babies? Environment does not change the baby or its worth. Even if it did however, the mother (or rapist) is the one who made the decision on where the baby was located and so the unborn baby shouldn't be held responsible simply due to his/her location. So, Environment does not differentiate abortion from murder or justify it.

3) Degree of Dependence-
The unborn baby is totally dependent on his/her mother and for the most part so are infants, toddlers, and small children. Let's say I have an 12 year old son who is becoming independent. He can cook and take care of himself until he is diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. Now he needs at least 4 shots of insulin a day and has to check his blood sugar at least 8 times a day. He becomes very dependent on me as his parent again. Does that make it okay to murder him? Of course not, that is logically and morally absurd. Degree of dependency is not a valid differentiating factor between abortion and other forms of murder.

In my opening argument I have successfully proven that from the moment of conception an embryo is a living human being that consequently deserves human rights. This proves abortion is killing a human being. I then proved that the killing of an unborn baby is no more morally justifiable than murder in other forms. The government as an obligation to take action against immoral acts like murder. Therefore, abortion should be illegal. Vote Pro.



On to the debate...

I. Individual Autonomy
Under the principle of individual autonomy, a person has the right to determine his actions upon himself, his thoughts over his actions, and his actions abiding his thoughts. No one shall proclaim a restriction or utter a coercion upon an individual who is rightfully exercising his right to bodily autonomy. It is then established that a person may do whatever he intends to do with his own body, whether or not there are, and he is aware of, potential harms attached to its action's consequences. Since he has consented himself to do so, he will automatically be holding the burden of responsibility of whatever harms he might face. If a person eats 200 cupcakes a day, no one shall take his freedom and happiness to do so; he may hold the burden of having diabetes after a year but the mere fact that he is considered as a consensual self deliberately negates any negative remarks on this matter. If a teenager aborts the fetus inside of her, she may do so. It is her right to her own body and nobody shall take that away from her.

What if the government tries to?

II. Violation of Human Rights
The duty of the government is to cater to the necessities of its people. One of the innumerable needs would be the protection of each and every individual's fundamental human rights. Imposing a massive restriction such as criminalizing abortion is a testament of violation, an infringement to an essential tenet of human law and nature---the freedom of choice. Freedom and choice are two inseparable aspects of society. As justice, freedom, choice, protection, and speech are virtually imperative values that hold equally indistinguishable importance, it is the duty of the government to abide by the laws of man and nature and ultimately subject itself to catering to human rights protection, especially when the rights of women are concerned.

What about them? Will women be greatly affected when abortion is made illegal?

III. Desperate Mothers
Criminalization of abortion is a major downfall to women who seek it. There will always be mothers who will seek and be desperate for abortion. If abortion is made illegal, no doctor would perform this type of surgery and desperate mothers will resort aborting by themselves, with no supervision, with no aid of a medical professional, with no certainty of a safe undertaking. Purely unnacceptable. An article story showing this scenario was published on IOL, a publication website, which started like this:

"Samantha is a 17-year-old girl who aborted her five-month-old foetus at an illegal back-alley clinic in Pietermaritzburg last month. Since then, Samantha has suffered severe pain and abnormal bleeding, and was forced to tell her mother, who rushed her to their family doctor."

Halfway through a testimony from a nurse was shown.

"Nurse and social worker, Daya Pillay, told the Daily News that in her 25-year experience, illegal abortions had skyrocketed in the past five years.""It has become a massive problem. Young women are bleeding to death as a result of the botched procedures being performed on them," Pillay said."[1]

Teenagers who will engage in illegal abortion may face the same type of problem, more or less. The simple solution to this unfortunate phenomena would be the utter legalization of abortion.

IV. Jobless Teenagers
It is also noteworthy to take on the issue of jobless teenagers, not that they can't find one, but they haven't reached a more mature age to finish education and find a job. Early adolescence to early adulthood is a solid transition period. In these years, we are dependent to parents, still learning and going to school, exploring life with pink-hued sunglasses, and, obviously, too young to work. Once we criminalize abortion, a teen will be forced to take care of her growing baby, her schooling will be affected, and if ever she's at her early twenties, she has no financial capability in feeding the baby when she's still about to find her job, making her career largely vague and unstable. Allow abortion and all of these problems will be easily eliminated.

V. A Question of Life
Of course, I have not forgotten to include the embryo's qualification for life, as this matter is highly debated and scientifically argued between polarized consensus. But, I have devided to put it as my last argument as scientific researches perpetually change and modify and calibrate itself, sometimes to suit a certain group's ideologies and sometimes it falls short of academic soundness that it can no longer be rendered as valid or it simply falls shorts due to mysteries that human thought fails to fathom. However, I will be sticking with the current criteria for life as of the human moment. The current definition is that organisms maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, and reproduce. If a criterion doesn't fit, then it would constitute to the invalidity of the matter in question. An embryo cannot reproduce. That criterion does not fit to the embryo. That would make its qualification of life invalid. Con has also gave this set of criteria to prove his stand which makes his claim self-refuting.

I have provided compact legal, societal, and scientific explanations to uphold my stand as a pro-choice advocate. With abortion's legalization, women will freely exercise their freedom of choice, evade bodily harm, secure their career, and attain personal happiness.

Debate Round No. 2


Thank you Nuevo.
I will begin by rebutting my opponents fifth contention before addressing the rest in the order they were given. I am doing this because it is central to the my refutation of his other points.

5) Question of Life-
Con begins this argument by saying that people argue about this subject and it's possible that we are wrong about the scientific facts because science advances and our view changes. He then submits that we can't trust the scientific facts in play. This is illogical because we have to base debate of what we currently know otherwise debate is worthless. He then accepted the scientific consensus on the universal traits of a living organism. He then misunderstands the seventh qualifying factor and suggests that an embryo doesn't meet it. The ability to reproduce must be written into the DNA of an organism. This is not the same as readiness to reproduce. Reproductive systems take development but as long as they are part of the development that entity is considered possessing of the ability to reproduce. This is obvious when we consider that children who have not reached sexual maturity are not ready to reproduce yet are still considered living as their ability to do so is under development. This applies to embryos, thus human embryos still qualify as human life. He also breaks the rules by rebutting my argument directly.

1) Individual Autonomy-
I think for the most part we agree here. Where our views diverge is that he argues that since a fetus naturally interferes with the mother's bodily autonomy to some extent, the woman has the right to kill it. This is obviously refuted when we acknowledge that the fetus was not given choice in his/her location. The woman is the one who decides this when she chooses to engage in sexual intercourse. This argument is like saying that if I invited someone into my house I can then kill them to protect myself because they "trespasses" on my property. Even in the instance of rape, it is not the fetus choosing to interfere with the woman's bodily autonomy. This would be like someone with a gun forcing his way into your house with a child hostage into your home. Then after wrecking your home he leaves and leaves the child. Are you then morally justified in killing the child for trespassing? Of course not.

2) Violation of Human Rights-
I agree with the general premise here but I disagree with its application. He talks about how restricting restricts a necessary freedom that is directly tied to human rights. To explain the fault here I will suggest one simply replaces the word with abortion with killing or murder. I have successfully proven that killing an unborn baby is taking an innocent life and therefore abortion is simply a specific means of murder. Our human right to freedom, autonomy, and choice end where we start infringing on another's rights. Further, I explained in my last rebuttal that the child's right to life supersedes the right of bodily autonomy because the woman or rapist made the decision that lead to the woman's autonomy being compromised not the unborn child who is simply a victim of circumstance.

3) Desperate Mothers-
My opponent talks about how pregnant women will still pursue abortions and will hurt themselves in the process. There are two ways to refute this: a) measuring lives lost vs lives saved and b) looking at the morality of protecting the offender
a) Life for life:
"In 1972 (the year before abortion was federally legalized), a total of 24 women died from causes known to be associated with legal abortions, and 39 died as a result of known illegal abortions." (1) That's 39 lives lost due to the criminalization of abortion. Most likely some of those would have died from legal abortion anyway but let's pretend they would all have lived. Obviously it is tragic that these women died however, the problem of countless mothers dying as a result of black market abortion is obviously being overblown by the "pro-choice" side. Now let's compare that to how many lives are lost from legal abortion. In 2012 4 mothers died from legal abortion and over 1 million unborn babies. (1) Even if the numbers don't match up quite right due to the difference in time between when the statistics were gathered, there is no question that the numbers aren't even comparable. If even 1% of pregnant women are deterred from having an abortion due to it being illegal (this number would most likely be higher but I will be ridiculously conservative with my estimates) that saves 10,000 lives which is far more than would ever be lost in black market abortions.
b) Protecting the offender over the victim:
We should not seek to save the lives of women who take part in abortion (murder) at the cost of the life of the innocent unborn baby. This argument of "Well they will do it anyways so we should protect them while they commit heinous acts against others" is evil. Let's use a hypothetical world to illustrate my point. In this world there is a huge problem with murder. No matter how hard the law enforcement seeks to stop this, it keeps happening to some extent. However, there is another problem, when people murder others they have a chance of cutting themselves on their sword and dying as well. So in order to stop the deaths, the government legalized murder and offers all the murderers a big club to murder the innocent people they want without any negative consequences. Is this world a better place because the government legalized murder and gave everyone clubs? No, it's obviously worse because now the society embraces the evil they originally fought against in an attempt to save people from the negative consequences of evil things. (Sorry weird analogy but I hope you see my point.) Society should fight to protect victims of crimes not just legalize them to protect the criminals.

4) Jobless Teenagers-
My opponent is essentially saying that it's hard for teenagers to have a job in order to support a child.
First, women 19 and under only make up 11% of abortions. (1) Unless my opponent can prove the other 89% of abortions are justified, this is a fairly small societal harm.
Second, there are huge waiting lists for people wanting to adopt babies in particular. Due to the fact that babies can be entirely raised by the adoptive parents and don't carry the same "baggage" (for lack of a better term) that older orphans and foster children do, babies are adopted very quickly. My wife's parents adopted two infants and have first hand experience with this. They waited for nearly a year each time before they were matched with a baby (they didn't really have specific requirements they were looking for either). If a teenager carries the baby to term and then offers the baby up for adoption this erases the need for her to find employment. It also benefits the families of those looking to adopt.
Third, it is not impossible for the mother to find a job if need be. It makes things harder, for instance, I had my first child 5 months ago (when I was 19) and it's hard supporting him and my wife. But I chose what I did knowing the potential outcome. Additionally, there are countless programs to financially help poor, single mothers.
Lastly, I have already proven an unborn baby has equal rights to any other person. If someone had a kid and was struggling to pay bills, he/she could not simply kill the child.

I have detailed why unborn babies are scientifically classified as living human beings. Therefore to kill them is murder. The differences between an unborn baby and another human being do not justify murder. The mother's individual autonomy and right to freedom/choice does not mean she is guaranteed the right to murder an innocent person especially when she chooses to engage in sexual behavior knowing the risks. Protecting mother's seeking to murder their babies is not morally sound. There are other solutions for teens besides murder. Vote Pro.



Thank you Pro for giving me an intelligent rebuttal in a very well-mannered approach, building his case and talking enthusiastically about his family. However, his intellect has skewed to generate a plethora of false assumptions regarding my claims. Along with proving why, I will also introduce sound documents and testimonies to effectively fortify my rebuttals and refutations. With all being said, let us advance to the debate.

V. Question of Life
"Con begins this argument by saying that people argue about this subject"He then submits that we can't trust the scientific facts in play. This is illogical because we have to base debate of what we currently know otherwise debate is worthless."

I never stated that I don't have any trust on "scientific facts in play". I simply acknowledged the ever-changing nature of science, as it progresses and advances itself through time. Keeping in mind this truth, I firmly believe that the question of an embryo's life is still at the tip of the balance, presently wavered by polarized consensus, and that is the major reason I put it as my last contention, not saying that it is the least, but saying that it is very unstable as of the present moment. However, as Con, I must accept the present qualifications of life as I base my refutations on what the world currently provides and try to negate it. The above-statement is a bare fabrication, a pure straw-man made by the affirmative side to transcend himself into a height in the debate. Now that I have negated his hollow assertion, I move that Pro should ask me questions in the comments section if he cannot simply understand what I am trying to say.

V.1. Sensitivity
Both sides agree on the usage of the seven qualifications, but only differ when a fetus is at question. Again, when one of these criteria are inapplicable, it would automatically constitute to invalidity. I will add another criteria that doesn't fit the validity of a fetus, in majority of abortions, for life, sensitivity. A human is capable of adapting to his environment intrinsically because of his stimuli. Humans react to pain, happiness and sorrow because of stimuli. Does a fetus have stimuli? Of course. But, the true question is: When do they possess it?
"The most frequently cited source comes from "Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence," published in the August 2005 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). The JAMA authors concede that pain receptors are present throughout the unborn child"s entire body by no later than 16 weeks after fertilization and nerves link these receptors to the brain"s thalamus and sub-cortical plate by no later than 20 weeks post fertilization."[1]
"Another frequently cited source comes from a 2010 piece produced by a "working group" of the (British) Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists titled "Fetal Awareness: Review of Research and Recommendations for Practice". These authors, like those of the JAMA article, argued that in order to experience pain a functioning cerebral cortex is needed, which does not occur until well after 20 weeks."[1]
It is proven that in 16-20 weeks, the brain of the fetus is still acquiring the ability to feel pain, therefore, is still learning how to adapt to the environment. Until then, the fetus is not a human being, since the ability to adapt is not yet acquired. But, how is abortion acceptable, then? To make things more clear, consider this statistics report.
" The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 66 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 92 percent are performed within the first 13 weeks. Only 1.2 percent occur at or after 21 weeks (CDC, 2013). Since the nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the proportion of abortions performed after the first trimester has decreased because of increased access to and knowledge about safe, legal abortion (Gold, 2003)."[2]

A compelling number of abortions happen prior to the formation of a fully functioning cerebral cortex. People have already done this innumerable times, year by year, effectively performing safe abortions. Pro has cited his sources from the time abortion was new. Pro used outdated sources and omits the huge difference from 1972 to 2017. May it be 1972 (as Pro wrote) or 1973, the point is clear; safe abortions proliferated through time, are accepted, and violates no human right, since the fetus is not human in majority of the abortions made.

V.2. Reproduction
Pro asserts that human embryos have the ability to reproduce, so it qualifies as a human being. This simply shows how his false assumptions and lack of intellect on the subject will prove disadvantageous . An embryo is not a human being. The embryonic stage accounts to no development whatsoever of reproductive organs, as for a cerebral cortex.[3] This makes two of the criteria invalid, thus making the embryo not suited for life.

I. Bodily Autonomy
Pro has yet made another assumption herein, along with a greatly flawed analogy. Pro states that I believe women can terminate their fetus because naturally, the fetus interferes with the mother's right to bodily autonomy. It is impossible for a fetus to interfere, in every extent. The only thing that interferes the self-principle is the restrictions of the government to practice it. Also, Pro's analogy is fallible in many angles. The first analogy talks about how inviting visitors then killing them because the owner of the house thinks they trespassed is analogous to abortion. If you invited them, would it be called trespassing? How magical.

Being the owner means that everyone who is inside your house should abide your rules. Since, we are talking about an unborn being, the owner can rightfully lead it to its exit. Since visitors are humans, and plural, an abortion to baby twins, triplets, quatruplets are awfully wrong. Remember, the 38th week post fertilization is full-term [3] and they are already humans as opposed to embryos. The rape analogy was equally flawed. The fetus doesn't interfere the right, but the rapist surely does. He brought an unborn being to your home forcefully, it is your right to decide if it stays or not.

II. Violation of Human Rights
As I mentioned, innumerable values hold equally indistinguishable values. Could you proudly say that the right to life supersedes the right to happiness? The right to free speech over the right to choose? Simply not. They are equal and universal. Violation of these important rights is as bad as infringing the other important ones.

III. Desperate Mothers
A. Life for life - I have already negated the outdated source presented here. Again, from 1972 to 2017, countless advancements were made, especially in making smart and safe abortions. Pro then states
" If even 1% of pregnant women are deterred from having an abortion... that saves 10,000 lives which is far more than would ever be lost in black market abortions."

That's also 10, 000 violated women for your conservative estimate.

B. Protection of offender over victim - Pro here states that "We should not seek to save the lives of women who take part in abortion (murder) at the cost of the life of the innocent unborn baby." Pro proudly favors the non-existent right of the unborn over the essential right of the mother which automatically infringes the right of others wrongfully.

IV. Jobless Teenagers
Although it is true that adoption can be an option, that equally holds true for abortion. Also, even at 11%, lives and families and careers and their personal health would be at stake, especially when the mother is financially challenged. Let the mother cater her needs financially and career wise.

I have effectively negated Pro's numerous faulty claims and refuted with evidences as promised. The embryo is not alive. The rights and needs of women should be greatly upheld in this matter greatly.

I affirm the resolution.
Debate Round No. 3


Thank you Nuevo for participating in this debate.

As I pointed out in Con's first argument (Contention V) there was a direct rebuttal to my argument by claiming, . "Con has also gave this set of criteria to prove his stand which makes his claim self-refuting." This clearly violates debate rules. I would also point out that my opponents rebuttal is riddled with condescension and ad hominem against my intellect. I hope that any judges will not overlook this behavior.

Qualification of Life-
My opponent restated his acknowledgement of "the ever-changing nature of science". My point about this statement was to question Con's motives in regards to this statement and its relevance to the debate. The only make this statement is to undermine the credibility of my argument about the scientific evidence that proves the humanity of the unborn.

V1- Sensitivity
My opponent is in this argument is essentially saying that because a fetus lacks the advanced mechanisms to respond to stimuli, it doesn't meet the criterion to be considered a living organism. This is flawed logic. As I stated in my opening argument, level of development does not determine personhood. Embryos at conception lack advanced systems of responding to stimuli because those systems are in development. Now this does not mean an embryo lacks the ability to respond to stimuli on a cellular level through mechanotransduction and chemotransduction. These cellular capabilities are actually what allows the embryo to maintain its homeostasis which is another qualification for life. Much like corral and plants, an unborn baby does not have pain receptors yet they are still considered living organisms. My opponent might point out that humans are different from things like plants and therefore an embryo may be living but not a human. But the difference is that an embryo has human DNA. This means it is in the process of developing the full capabilities of its sensory and other bodily functions as we all are until our mid 20's. Con's argument here is selecting an arbitrary stage of development to determine personhood.

V2 Reproduction-
Con argues that there is no development of reproductive systems in the embryonic stage. This is false. The embryo contains human DNA which directs the development of the human body. It is true that reproductive organs are not formed, however the process of forming them is still underway because the development of the human organism is underway and the biological systems required to support a fully functioning reproductive system. Once again this argument is arbitrarily selecting a stage of development of a natural process to determine human rights.

1) Bodily Autonomy-
My opponent suggests that my analogy was flawed because, if the owner of the house invites someone in then they are not trespassing. That was the point of my analogy and while it was not A perfect one, it illustrates the immorality of giving consent and then claiming it wasn't. A mother gives consent through engaging in sexual intercourse because the mother knows the risks and the natural biological function of the behavior. She not only invites a human being to form inside her but forces that person to form inside her. Therefore she relinquished her bodily autonomy. I suppose a better analogy would be the mother forcing the baby onto her boat and then once out at sea pushing the baby out because they are infringing on her right to her private property. This analogy would fix the particular problem with my previous analogy but both analogies were simply used to point out the immorality in giving consent and revoking it, knowing that to do so would result in the death of a human being. The mother can exercise her bodily autonomy prior to impregnation and birth. The exception of course is rape in which case we should punish the rapist not the innocent baby. I've proved that the life of an unborn is worth as much as any other human. One cannot kill their child outside the womb (even if they are a product of rape) simply because the child is a physical or financial burden therefore we should not be allowed to do so while the baby is inside.

2) Violation of Human Rights-
My opponent argues that the woman's right to bodily autonomy is equal to the baby's life/bodily autonomy. I agree to some extent. The problem though is that their bodily autonomy is in conflict. The baby's bodily autonomy in this case supersedes because the baby's bodily autonomy is directly connected to the baby's life and in 98% of cases also because the mother gave consent through choosing to be sexually active with all the potential consequences of that action.

3) Desperate Mothers-
A) Life for Life:
My opponent says that since my statistic is from a long time ago it is out of date because science has advanced. I'm not sure why this would be the case. My point in using the statistic was to highlight the fact that only 39 women died as a result of illegal abortion. I already acknowledged that less women die from legal a abortion when I introduced the 2012 statistic that only 4 women died from legal abortions in that year. The reason I used the 1972 statistic was not to emphasize that 24 women died of legal abortion it was to point out that even in 1972 when legal abortions only happened half as often, (1) only 39 women died as opposed to the 1 million babies that now die each year due to legal abortion. If we are valuing the lives of the unborn and the mothers equally (which we ought to because I have already explained how they are living human being) then we should logically be putting a stop to a practice that takes a million lives per year and find other ways to save the lives of mothers dying of unsafe illegal abortions in other ways or accept the deaths of less than a 100 a year to save the million. This is especially true when you take into account my point about the fact that the mother is knowingly choosing behavior that could put her bodily autonomy at odds with another individual (her unborn baby). So, no that's not 10,00 women violated by my conservative estimate because only 2% percent of those did not give inherent consent and for those 2% that were raped we should punish for the crime where punishment is due, not upon those forced into a hard situation (unborn baby).
B) Protection of offender over victim:
Con's only argument is that I can't prove the rights of the unborn so the mother's rights supersede. The problem is obvious, I have indeed proven the humanity and the individuality of the unborn and therefore their basic rights. My point stands.

4) Jobless Teens-
My opponent restated that 11% of people who would have economically benefited from having abortion would suffer. I disagree because as my opponent concedes, adoption is a viable solution that takes into account the right to the life for the baby. This argument to is dependent on the false notion that an unborn baby is not a human being and therefore falls with the rest of Con's argument.

There is really no argument that the embryo at conception is a distinct living organism. To say otherwise is to take a misguided view of the universal traits of life and defy science. It is also a human as it is in the process of developing human systems, just as I am at 20 years old, still developing my human systems. We must define human life and we must rely on scientific consensus to do so. We must then protect that life even if it has consequences for individuals who chose the actions that put their rights in conflict with another's. I have proven in this debate that the best way to uphold human rights is to ban the practice of murdering the unborn. I have also done so without using a condescending tone to belittle my opponent and I have followed all the rules of the debate. I thank those who judge this debate and urge them to uphold life and freedom for those with no voice. Vote Pro.



I heartily offer a big thanks to Deonatus for a very exciting and fun debate. I haven't been on debates for some time now and it is a joy to see this one come to an end. Also, my sources are pasted in the comments section to maximize my character usage. Let us advance!

Pro accuses me of using a derogative tone and assaulting his intellect. I simply stated in my R3 how the affirmative side builds his contentions by starting off with fabricated assertions then using it to form his arguments. I encourage the judges to examine how Pro made up his claims about mine and see for themselves that what I did was to eradicate any fabrications and uphold the truth, which I advocate greatly. This is a greater violation of conduct compared to mine. I even suggested that Pro should contact me on the comments section to clarify things so that he won't commit the same faulty mistakes. However, this attitude continued even in this round, accusing and exaggerating in equal measure . Also, humor shows a debater's tone, without it, the debate will be monotonous. I read DDO's very own debate tutorial ('cause RoyLatham was there) and it highly encouraged tone. But my opponent treated it as being condescending, then treated my whole R3 as condescending as well. I challenge the public to read my R3, do it seven times, and comment if I used condescension for the whole round.

V.Question of Life
Pro claims that we base on scientific data for the debate. Yet, he fails to do so. On the other hand, I have proven scientifically, supported by two neutral articles of medical organizations [1], that an embryo is not human. Pro states that at the moment of conception, the embryo is a living human being. But, embryo's can't adapt to the environment until the 20th week post-fertilization.[1] They also don't have reproductive systems until the end of the first trimester, which Pro also conceded to be true.[3] Reproduction and sensitivity are criteria for life, and an embryo fails to meet them.

But, Pro argues that level of development doesn't mean personhood, that an embryo can be human, so it's human. Fallible. A sperm cell has the ability to become human, it's still in an arbitrary stage, right? An egg cell, too. And, it's also in a temporal standstill. But, is it human? No, there's a fine line between can-be human and is-already human. Also, Pro states:

"Con argues that there is no development of reproductive systems in the embryonic stage... is arbitrarily selecting a stage of development of a natural process to determine human rights."

This is Pro's whole rebuttal in 'Reproduction'. Notice how he misunderstood my contentions, then formed a rebuttal out of it. In my R3, I stated that there are no developments of a reproductive system during the embryonic stage, but I didn't state there are no developments all throughout as Pro seem to believe. If Pro just clarified things in the comments section, this wouldn't've happened. By that, Pro's rebuttal shall be hollow and negated.

I.Bodily Autonomy
I thank Pro for renewing his analogy. However, it falls short at the same level as his former ones. Pro keeps on stating that the mother's right is infringed by the embryo or fetus and surrenders her bodily autonomy. Fallacious. How can a non-human multicellular diploid eukaryotic organism which dependently survives, infringe the rights of a healthy living human female aware of her capabilities and complete dominion over the unborn? It simply can't. The mother doesn't relinquish her bodily autonomy in the process, as innate as it is. Again, the mother can abort the unborn under this principle for it is her own body and she determines what to do with it. And, the embryo isn't human to start with, without rights and humanity and bodily autonomy. Pro never "proved that the life of an unborn is worth as much as any other human." I don't even know why he thought so, either.

II.Violation of Rights
"My opponent argues that the woman's right to bodily autonomy is equal to the baby's life/bodily autonomy." I didn't. Also, he excessively used the term 'baby' in this particular rebuttal which is wrong. The public should replace the word 'baby' to 'embryo' or 'fetus' then read it again. It makes a big difference. The matter in question is not of the living baby, take note. Moreover, Pro hasn't refuted as to how indistinguishable the value of fundamental human rights are. If the government criminalized abortion, they'd be infringing the rights of the mother to freedom and choice, which is equally important for the state to treat and protect. The only thing he argued was that the fetus' self autonomy supersedes that of the mother's. But, I already negated Pro's claim of the fetus' life. Again, the fetus isn't human. No life, no self autonomy. Thinking otherwise would be illogical.

III.Desperate Mothers
A.Life for life
Pro omits the importance of the advancement of abortion through time. He believes his outdated source still stands proudly, while asking "why would this would be the case". Now, consider the progress humanity had formed in abortion from 1973 to 2017. Back then, knowledge wasn't that available and the studies were still at a low stage. Pro argued that even while legal abortion was available back then, some women died. But now, with technological advancements, refined medical studies, and growing awareness, the present is arguably safer than the past.

B.Protection of offender over victim
Pro claims that I lacked refutation on this round and he has proven the humanity of the fetus, therefore his argument stands. Actually, the only thing comparable to this claim was his belief that the embryo was human at the moment of conception which I already negated with strong scientific backing. He keeps sticking to old illogical contentions which I already have refuted at earlier chapters inside the rounds.

IV.Jobless Teenagers
Again, Pro wrote 'baby'. When reading Pro's rebuttals, please change it to 'fetus' or 'embryo', it changes everything. This is not an appeal to semantics. The real matter in question is of the embryo or fetus, not the living baby.

Also, Pro stated that since I conceded to consider adoption as a viable option, my argument falls along with it. This is utterly flawed and illogical. Yes, I acknowledge adoption. But, I did not concede to it as a greater alternative for abortion. Moreover, in conceding, my argument does not fall. A simple recognition does not do harm in any extent. But, a largely misunderstood idea certainly does.

Again, teenagers should prioritize their careers, health, family, and freedom. There is still a lot to explore during this period. Upholding the rights of women to abortion can massively aid the female population into their self-improvement and happiness.

I have strongly negated, with scientific documents, how an embryo is not a human being at the moment of conception, as opposed to Pro's belief. It cannot reproduce and adapt to environment, which makes its life invalid. I also debunked the notion that personhood is not in the level of development. The stages of development strongly matter, of course. I certainly recognize how important the rights of women to freedom and choice are, along with their bodily autonomy over the unborn. Rights are equally important and violation of these rights are as horrendous when done to other rights. I have actual testimonies of women undergoing illegal abortion and getting nothing but pain and danger. I also explained how Pro's outdated source proves little of its message compared to my more current sources. And, I also believe that teenagers, as growing adults, should prioritize their career and life. They should be given freedom to explore the world and build their lives as how they vision it. More importantly, I have never made any fabrications to deliberately inflate my rebuttals and exaggerate on accusations.

I proudly affirm my position and negate the affirmative. Vote Con
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Nuevo 3 years ago
I think my rebuttal was fair enough. I simply made a refutation, not a whole new argument. You added a new analogy and I even acknowledged it. Let the public decide, bro.

Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
>Reported vote: LuciferWept// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments), 2 points to Pro (Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Tough one. So, Pro did cite more sources (not counting the dictionary), so he got the reliable sources, but his arguments were strange, such as the point about a man with a child hostage coming into a home. Made no sense to me. Thus they were unconvincing. Con made more convincing arguments. Clear and easy to follow, although I disagree with much of what he says. (My personal stance is that abortion is wrong but should be legal). However, it was great reading an argument on this subject in which the twin religions of Christianity and Feminism were not present.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Sources are insufficiently explained. Quantity of sources alone is not sufficient reason to award these points " the voter must compare their quality. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. Though the voter does kind of assess a specific point from Pro, they are required to assess specific points from both sides, not just generalize about what each side accomplished in his view based on clarity.
Posted by Deonatus 3 years ago
I would like to point out to any prospective judges that my opponent, nuevo, added a brand new argument in his final round which allowed me no opportunity whatsoever to respond and debunk the obviously flawed argument.
"But, Pro argues that level of development doesn't mean personhood, that an embryo can be human, so it's human. Fallible. A sperm cell has the ability to become human, it's still in an arbitrary stage, right? An egg cell, too. And, it's also in a temporal standstill. But, is it human? "
This argument is not represented anywhere else in the debate and it is unfair for Con to include in the final round leaving no opportunity for me, the Pro side, to respond.
It is also fallacious in that it ignores the fact that a gametes (sex cell) are not in the process of naturally forming human systems. They cannot metabolize, grow, they don't have the full set of DNA to label it an individual human etc. which are qualifying factors for human life. This means that while sperm/egg cells are not living organisms or a developing humans (having a complete set of human DNA) it is obviously different from a fertilized human egg.
Posted by Volmire 3 years ago

I. Individual Autonomy
- Bodily autonomy never supersedes right to life.
- You are forgetting the unborn human's bodily autonomy.
- Bodily Autonomy would justify even the grisly partial birth abortions.

II. Violation of Human Rights
- The the right to life is being violated for the unborn

III. Desperate Mothers
- Mother's shouldn't be so desperate to kill off their children because they are a burden.
- They have the easy adoption option.
- No one is forcing these mothers to get pregnant (99% of the time), they should take responsibility for their actions.

IV. Jobless Teenagers
- This ignores the worth of the human they are killing, which is the central issue of the debate. Imagine saying, "Allow us to kill [insert people group here] and all these problems will be eliminated."

V. A Question of Life
- There is no question that they are alive, scientifically. This has been known for over a hundred years. As the pro noted, even toddlers can't reproduce, but they are considered alive.
Posted by Deonatus 3 years ago
@lacov I appreciate your interest and compliment. I have done countless hours of research on this subject and I am very passionate about it. I respect and acknowledge good arguments on the pro-choice side and enjoy hearing their side of the debate. Thanks for the critique, I have wondered whether I should include definitions in the first round and will do so next time.
Posted by Deonatus 3 years ago
There may be better ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies but implementing those methods (I.e. access to birth control, sex ed, etc.) does not mean we can't/shouldn't also ban the murder of unborn babies. Additionally, birth control is already highly accessible and 9 in 10 abortions protection was used but failed for one reason or another and there is no way toprove the other 1 in 10 did not have the choice to use birth control and simply opted not to. I like your idea of holding both mother and father accountable except that at the moment men have little to no say on whether or not the mother gets an abortion. So in order to implement that, you would have to first agree to give the father the right to choose whether or not the mother could have the abortion (which I would be in favor of the father having an equal choice and accountability in the matter). Repeat offenders make up less than half of abortions so stopping those does not stop the majority of the problem.
Here's the link for my statistics:
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
I prefer to address the issue rather then the personality.
There are better ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies (the number one cause of abortion), proper sex education, available birth control and a support system that makes adoption a better choice then abortion.
I posit that law enforcement could be used to prevent unwanted pregnancy, by charging both male and female responsible for the unwanted pregnancy and the sterilization of both. Now that is motivation towards prevention and there is no repeat offenders.
Posted by Iacov 3 years ago
I will be watching this debate closely and I would like to say even though I am pro choice I think it was a very good opening argument by Deonatus. My only critique is that you should include your relevant definitions in round one.
Posted by Deonatus 3 years ago
I'm truly sorry that I rather hypocritically/ironically assumed the motives behind your question. I'm used to being told by the "prochoice" crowd that I want to punish and subjugate women because I don't support abortion but that doesn't mean I should have jumped to the concfusion that that was your intention.
However, you asked if my motive was to reduce abortion or punish women. There is no doubt that asking someone if their motive is to punish women is fairly loaded language and insinuates a great deal of negative things about me. So whether or not you intended it, your question frames me as an oppressive, sexist who wants to punish women. I want women (or men if they perform the abortion) who commit murder (which is what I believe abortion is) should be held accountable to that decision. Otherwise why have any laws? If some people are violating other people's rights, especially their right to life, then the US government has an obligation to forbid it regardless of whether it significantly lowers the occurance of the immoral act in question. So I guess to answer your question, neither. We should forbid abortion out of moral imperative not to punish women but to ensure our society is based on moral principles such as not killing innocent babies. Furthermore, I somehow doubt our culture of tolerance and even celebration of abortion (1) has not at all led to an increase in abortions. Making it illegal would be a step towards condemning that culture.
1) Teen Vogue article celebrating abortion in case you don't think our culture does that.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: The rules clearly forbid rebuttals in round two, but Con offered a rebuttal by saying,"Con has also gave this set of criteria to prove his stand which makes his claim self-refuting." Thus is a violation of conduct.

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