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

Abortion should be legal

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
JohnDover6 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2017 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,717 times Debate No: 102197
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Abortion should be legal to women because women have the right to do what they want with their bodies. As we progress in society it becomes more and more important for woman to take initiative amd decide for what they think will have the most postive impact in their life. If having the opportunity to decide whether abortion is most suitable is important for women today. According to Anne who wrote the article "what if abortion were illegal?" Says that of they were to make it illegal ot would cause a lot of problems. It could possibly have women try to do "home remedies" that can hurt themselves. Also, if abortion was illegal where they lived, some women may travel to far places where it legal just to get it done because they really desperate to have the procedure. So basically some women will still go out of there way just to have this done, because that's what they want for themselves for many reasons.


Abortion should be illegal (except for cases when a mothers life is greatly threatened) for these reasons which I will discuss in greater deal later; there are many ways births can be prevented , second the unborn babies are protected under the law, and it is against the Hippocratic Oath which all doctors must take.

There are many ways that are not an abortion that can be used before to prevent a birth. The Planned Parenthood website lists 20 different forms of birth control, many of which come at no charge. These different forms of birth control when used in tandem can reduce the risk of a birth to practically zero. These forms of birth control include but are not limited too:
Birth Control
Implant (Implanon and Nexplanon)
Birth Control Patch
Birth Control Pills
Birth Control Shot (Depo-Provera)
Birth Control Sponge (Today Sponge)
Birth Control Vaginal Ring (NuvaRing)
cervical Cap (FemCap)
Female Condom
Fertility Awareness-Based Methods (FAMs)
Morning-After Pill (Emergency Contraception)
Withdrawal (Pull Out Method)
This slue of methods are all viable methods of preventing a birth.

Unborn babies are in fact currently protected by the law. There is a current federal law called "The Unborn Victims of Violence Act" of it recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb". This means legally a crime can be committed against a baby, such as murder. Currently as it stands the law sees unborn children as human and all humans have the right to life. No one has a right to rob someone of the right to life, not a mother, not a father, no one.

Finally doctors who perform an abortion are in violation of the Hippocratic Oath which all doctors must take. "I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism." is a line from the modern Hippocratic Oath. Killing a baby when there are other alternatives is in direct violation of the statement against over treatment. As long as any other option exists a doctor should not carry out an abortion, because the thing a doctor must hold most sacred, a human life, is at stake.
Debate Round No. 1


Actually, according to the website article "Key Facts on the Unborn Victims Act" by National writes of life states is "The Unborn Victims of Violence Act recognizes that when a criminal attacks a pregnant woman, and injures or kills both her and her unborn child, he has claimed two human victims. The bill would establish that if a "child in utero" is injured or killed during the commission of certain federal crimes of violence, then the assailant may be charged with a second offense on behalf of the second victim, the unborn child." Also, further into the article its states that this act does not apply to abortions, and thats its the women's choice if they have one or not.

Some women do not like using alternatives to prevent children or don't feel comfortable using it/taking it. Like Birth Control for example it changes the women's hormones around and pumps hormones into their body to change the PH balance, either for the better or worse.

In addition, The Hippocratic Oath dates way back and is a religious belief, it is not a law. It meant / means to other religious individuals that "doctors must reject any role in killing and be devoted to the arts of healing", from the article "Hippocratic Oath and abortion". Hippocratic Oath with its prohibition on killing, clearly conflicted with the new legal and ethical realities of medical practice. Medical schools chose to drop the Oath or administer a more ambiguous one that suited the new era. Also, some doctors may believe in this but not all are religious, plus if they cant perform the procedure maybe that job isnt for them.

Women dont freely choose to have an abortion their is always a reason why they are choosing to take this hard decision. For many cases, that cant afford to take care of the child / themselves on their own or not ready for one etc.


The "Unborn Victims Act" designates unborn children as human beings with a clear right to life. According to the The National Right to Life Organization, the "Unborn Victims Act" does not include abortion as a legally punishable act as a compromise, so it could become law. However, the law does legally recognize unborn children as legal human being with rights, so this sets a legal precedent for the legal right to life debates. If a fetus can, in fact, have a crime committed against it, and is seen as a legal human being, it gives credence to the argument that mothers shouldn't have the right to kill a child just because it hasn't been given birth to yet.

The argument that women do not have to use birth control methods just because they don't like it is absurd and the argument that women may not feel comfortable using these methods, but are comfortable with getting an abortion may be even more absurd. A woman not only has the ability to use birth control methods if she can not support a child, she has a duty to use these birth control methods. There are many birth control methods which I listed which in no way shape or form affect hormones. The best way to stop a problem is prevention, and if prevention methods are used, abortion is unnecessary.

Finally, the Hippocratic Oath is still a mandatory oath which doctors must take. The oath specifically prohibits the unnecessary harm of human beings. If a baby is not threatening the safety of a woman, the abortion is not necessary and many other approaches can be taken towards the child. Such as government financial support, other forms of support, and giving the child up for adoption is also an option.
Debate Round No. 2


The "Unborn Victims Act" does not apply with abortions and the procedures that goes it at all. According to the article "key facts on the unborn victims of violence act" states that if a criminal attacks the mother and the baby, injuring or killing the baby, he has claimed two victims, and is sentence. This act only protects the baby when another is trying to physically hurt both mother and baby on purpose, and goes through with it. Also, it states that this bill explicitly provides that it does not apply to any abortions (legal or illegal or any form of medical treatment) because abortion is consent from the mother and thus the unborn victims act is only protection from criminals. Abortions is a terrible process but women should have the right to decide what is best for them and the baby. Some families / single mothers are not financially stable to take care of a child, so do you really think they are able to provide the right care for the child? For instance, the article on "Poverty And Abortion: A Vicious Cycle" says that 71% of women undergo an abortion (sometimes even more than once) because they cannot afford to take care of themselves while pregnant, cannot help support the baby even after it is born, and are in and out of shelters because they cannot afford to own a house. When being pregnant there is a lot of medical care / process women need to do in order to have a heathy baby and it cost a lot of money. Women have to go to frequent check ups, take certain vitamins, eat right and have to have a good environment at home so the stress does not hurt the baby etc. If they have none of that how could they know they are having a healthy baby or if the baby is even okay? Yes, there are times when a baby does come out healthy, and the mother or family could give it up for adoption, but there is also times where they do give the baby up for adoption and it does not go well. For example, the adoptive family does not really care for the child and maybe abuses them, or the child in and out of orphanages all of their life. This can cause the child to make bad decisions in their life or even end up in the same cycle as their biological parents. According to Dayton who wrote Growing up with toxic stress or addiction and its long term impact says that when a children come from broken homes, it higher's the chances of the child becoming addicted (to drugs and/or alcohol), having mental issues and doing a lot illegal things when they are older. So, sometimes even giving the child up for adoption or putting them in an orphanage is not always good.

Finally, the Hippocratic Oath is not a law at all, its an oath. Not everyone agrees with it nor follows it. According to "is the Hippocratic Oath still relevant to practicing doctors today" states that some medical students take the oath but never follow it. Also says there is different updated versions of the oath, so if there are doctors that specialize in that form of medical treatment (abortions) they most likely chose a different updated version of oath or did not at all. Even when I stated before that most medical schools chose to drop the oath or administer a more ambiguous one that is suited for the new era. So these oaths may not even apply to anything if most medical schools dropped them and if no one is going to truly follow and honor them.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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