The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2019 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 551 times Debate No: 120617
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




I invite anyone to debate me on this topic, But, To be fair, You will need a high intellectual capacity to even have a chance of defeating me. I have utilized this argument against many intellectually inferior beings with great success.

One rule: No ad-hominem attacks or any other logical fallacies, Else you will immediately forfeit the duel.

Okay with the formalities out of the way, Let's dive into the womb of my argument:

Premise 1: Murdering humans is wrong
Premise 2: Human life starts at conception (when the sperm fertilizes the ovum)
Conclusion: Abortion at any time after conception is wrong

I wish my opponent the best of luck, You will need it.



Okay, Hear me out guys. I know I'm gonna get a lot of heat over this, But if you can't argue about murdering kids then we're pretty much at World War 3 already. Let me just say my piece, And then I'll be out of here.

I agree entirely with your second premise. Human life does indeed start when cum meets egg.
  • "Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote. "[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, P. 31]
  • "Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, From the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus. "[Dox, Ida G. Et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, P. 146]
  • "The development of a human being begins with fertilization, A process by which two highly specialized cells, The spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, Unite to give rise to a new organism, The zygote. "
    [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, P. 3]

I'm glad you and I are on the same uterus with this one and we don't have to argue over basic and overwhelmingly evident biology like the deranged celebrity cunts who don't even know how their own bodies operate. I wish they could be aborted too, Lol. Haha. Anyway, I'm getting ahead of myself.

You see, It's your first premise that I'm having some trouble with. I'm telling you, Murder is okay at a certain point. I'll direct you back to one of my first debates on this car yard of a website, "The Population of the World Should be Reduced by Half. " https://www. Debate. Org/debates/The-Population-of-the-World-Should-be-Reduced-by-Half/1/

The world is overpopulated, It's a simple fact. All problems in the world - AIDS, Influenza, Natural disasters even, Are all caused by this titanic bane. If we eliminate simply the children, The mentally retarded and the disabled people in our society, The population would swiftly be reduced down to 4 billion. This is the amount of people the world requires to function stably. We need to begin killing. Murder is necessary, Easy, And good. That means no more children. Aborting something that isn't even physically on the Earth yet? Please. That's kids stuff (literally haha). We need to do much more than that.

We need to abort 4 billion humans.

Drave out.

Debate Round No. 1


To be honest, I wasn't expecting such a keen minded opponent, And you've definitely proven the quality of your cum with that opening statement. Initially I thought I was rock solid on premise 1, But you've brought up some astute counter-points.

I went ahead and read your argument on overpopulation and I find it quite a fascinating insight into the current problems facing our society today. I agree that overpopulation is a problem, But I think we may have slightly different approaches on how to solve it. For example, You would condone the outright murder of innocent children, But I feel that's a little too extreme (let's take it back a notch squirrely Dan).

I think we can all agree Pedophiles should be aborted off the face of this earth, Because surely their depraved minds extricate them from any semblance of humanity. In this case, A late-term abortion would be considered a convenience to the general public and an overall good thing to do. So I think there are some circumstances where a post-birth abortion would be considered a moral good, We just have to analyse the segments of the human population that actually don't bare any resemblance to common humanity.

Another good example would be retardation. This is a clear signal from nature that something has gone very, Very wrong in the cunt-tunnel. Of course it would be much cleaner and more efficient to abort retards as early as possible, But I think severe cases of retardation could justify any late-term abortion, As long as atleast 2 experts in cum genetics can provide a professional opinion on a cum-by-cum basis.

Now with all that said, It's clear there's still some ambiguity in how this lack-of-humanity principle could be applied. Unfortunately, I could foresee a future where certain groups like rapists might fall under this category of depravity, Which is definitely something to be concerned about, And steps would have to be taken to mitigate this risk (perhaps by introducing a universal code of cumduct? ). Anyway, I digress.

There's definitely some merit to this approach and I think it's worth investigating, But I still don't think you truly refuted my original argument. So far we've established abortion should be legal in some outlier cases, But I believe my argument still stands for the majority of abortion cases.



masterdrave forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


EltyoStyles forfeited this round.


masterdrave forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by John_C_1812_II 3 years ago
It"s a legal issue keep your accusation admission to yourself. I did Female specific amputation I do not need to self-incriminate myself because of lack of impartial judicial representation.
Posted by billsands 3 years ago
it is a personal issue keep your catholic dogma to yourself
Posted by John_C_1812_II 3 years ago
Admissions of guilt are proven to be illegal on the way, Or method they are taking place. Pregnancy abortion is both an admission and confession the debate is over a separation between the two options given. The wrong is that all woman are united in relationship to a crime when a description to the medical process should be impartial.

To add to this a woman and man in a united state perform pregnancy abortions in several ways. First by not having sex. Second by donating materials required for reproduction meaning sperm and egg.

The constitutional understanding of the beginning of life is at the creation of sperm or egg as these objects have already been proven to be alive by science. It is the duration of life which is increased with their union only. Life is not created with this union it has already started.

A female specific amputation is proven to be an pregnancy abortion that is not taking place by lack of sexual activity.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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