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


Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/13/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 881 times Debate No: 19278
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




If I kill a child would I be considered a murderer? I believe so, yet some people get away with such intolerable acts. Per say, women who refuse to give birth to living creatures, no pardon me, living humans. Why is this legal? Ok women get raped I can see why they would want to commit abortion, but they are still committing a crime, and so is the molester. Truth is, be cautious, one can't avoid rape nor death.


Thank you for instigating. I’d like to clarify for the record that I’m neither for nor against Abortion, I’m neutral on this issue and have mixed opinions about it.


My opponent begins his argument by comparing abortion to killing a child, making it murder. He also argues that refusing to give birth is murder. He questions the legality and says that when women get raped and decides to abort, they are committing a crime, and his statement to this is to just be cautious because it happens. Really? That’s too selfish.

But anyway, let’s move to my counter contentions:

Contention 1: Abortion is NOT murder

I’ll begin this contention by defining abortion and murder:

Abortion- is defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before it is viable {1}.

Murder-is the unlawful/intentional killing, with malice aforethought, of another human being {2}.

To say abortion is murder, my opponent needs to show and prove that a) a fetus is a human being, and b) All abortions are the intentional and unlawful killing of a human being.

But, there are lawful/legal abortions implemented by governments (abortion laws) {3}, especially in the US, so technically, this automatically negates b) (unless PRO has some counter?)

Killing a child with malice and intent is illegal, since children have rights, unlike fetuses.

Refusing to give birth is not abortion per se, but probably selfishness of the mother. But come on, think logically, she’ll give birth eventually.

If PRO can’t show and prove it, then he won’t satisfy his main contention that abortion is murder. But if he does prove it next round, I will expand this premise and negate his contentions.

  • Killing can be justified permissible in some cases:

Referring to PRO’s scenario comparing killing a child and terminating a pregnancy, I believe that’s too shallow, if otherwise, must we consider the following scenarios illegal/unlawful too?

- Trolley Problem (where you are in a moving trolley and there is a man tied to the tracks a few meters from you, you’re about to hit him, but there’s another way, but that way, you can see 5 people tied to the tracks. Now you have to choose between killing that person or killing 5 people).

- Parasitic Twin Example (Where a surgeon sacrifices a weaker twin to save the other twin).

- Self Defense (Protecting yourself from harm).

- Defense of Others (Protecting others from harm),

- Kill One, Save Many (If, for example, you had the chance to kill Hitler or some other greedy/corrupt/homicidal tyrant who’ll commit a massive genocide affecting millions in a moment, would you? Would you do it to save those ‘million’ people?)

Contention 2: Right to choose,

A person’s (particularly a woman’s) right to choose is valuable, a person’s right to do what he/she wants to his/her body is valuable. They have the right to decide on what to do with their body.

When a woman becomes pregnant, there is a chance that she will be affected with complications (pregnancy diseases, risks, etc.) Examples include ectopic pregnancy (caused by STDs), heavy bleeding, negative reproductive health diseases, diabetes, premature pregnancy, etc. {4}

One could argue that the woman’s life is more important than the fetus’, so if health risks are involved, the best way is to abort the fetus, if we don’t, the woman could die. We, as a society, should value that right, the right to save one’s life.

Also, a study related to abortion showed that abortion stats are similar in countries where it is lawful and those where it isn’t, it suggested that illegalizing the procedure does little to deter females seeking the termination of pregnancy {5}. (Will explain further next round if challenged)

I will expand these contentions further in the next round when contested. Good luck to you, PRO!







Debate Round No. 1


NOTE: Great Reasoning! This is looking like a good debate. Good Luck!
Considering my opponent's intentions are neutral I will thank him for participating in the PRO side.
I will commence my argument with the following:
Human: A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens. Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans.
Fetus: The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
Resemblance: The state or quality of resembling, especially similarity in appearance or in external or superficial details. [1]

According to simple definitions from my search criteria, we can clearly see how a fetus is a human being. It has the appearance of a human, AKA "Resemblance", as the dictionary states, which qualifies such species to the Human Species.

As my opponent stated - "Murder-is the unlawful/intentional killing, with malice aforethought, of another human being {2}." Abortion is a criminal intent given the obvious and vague reasons on why a woman is clearly taking regardless methods to commit such acts.

By definition:

"felony murder doctrine:
n. a rule of criminal statutes that any death which occurs during the commission of a felony is first degree murder, and all participants in that felony or attempted felony can be charged with and found guilty of murder. A typical example is a robbery involving more than one criminal, in which one of them shoots, beats to death or runs over a store clerk, killing the clerk. Even if the death were accidental, all of the participants can be found guilty of felony murder, including those who did no harm, had no gun, and/or did not intend to hurt anyone. In a bizarre situation, if one of the holdup men or women is killed, his/her fellow robbers can be charged with murder." [2]

We can agree that certain penalties can be imposed on the murderer, AKA, the abortionist.

Now lets ask ourselves, is killing a human acceptable in our society? [1] [2]


Thanks for responding.

My opponent’s arguments previously just showed that a fetus is a human being, but failed to prove that killing human beings are bad, he didn’t even refute my contention that murder can be justifiable.


RE: Fetus as human

CON states that a fetus resembles a human being, and thus must be considered a human being. Okay, we have that argument from him, now what? He didn’t state why aborting a fetus should be banned/illegal/immoral, but only wrote a crime statue, which I’ll address in a few.

Why the fetus is not a human being:

I will attempt to prove that the fetus must not be considered a fully resembled human being and thus negating the contention that states killing fetuses is as equal as killing human beings.

According to a report published by Joyce Arthur entitled: “Personhood: Is a Fetus a Human Being?” {1}, it showed that Fetuses are uniquely different from actual humans, and the most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. Anyone can take care of a newborn infant, but only pregnant women can nurture their fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it. Also, she said that fetuses don’t just depend on the woman for survival, but it needs to be inside the woman’s body for it to live. She states that human beings must be separate individuals.

RE: Felony murder rule

I think my opponent is confused with this rule, but abortion (at least in America), is not a considered felony, not even a crime. It is legal, so this doctrine is very much irrelevant, unless my opponent can show that abortion is equal to felony murder. But it is not, it’s ludicrous and frivolous to even suggest that.

RE: Killing humans unacceptable

I’ve addressed this contention previously, that killing can be acceptable and justifiable. I ask my opponent to please review them.


I have proven that a fetus is not a human being and that abortion is not murder, I’ve also proven previously the rights of women to control their body and an argument that shows illegal abortions happening which causes risks, whereas legalizing abortions can help decrease the risks. These arguments weren’t refuted by CON, so please extend them.



Debate Round No. 2


diegofurlan forfeited this round.


Thank you again for the debate.

Voters, extend previous contentions and vote PRO. Thank you.

If you're too lazy, just look at my acceptance pic, it's LEGEN.... wait for it.... DARY! (And that's why PRO wins).
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Maikuru 6 years ago
+1 for that picture alone.
Posted by jm_notguilty 6 years ago
R1 = Round 1
Posted by diegofurlan 6 years ago
Sorry, I'm new to this whole debate deal. I'm not sure what you mean by R1 haha I just joined this site.
Posted by jm_notguilty 6 years ago
Mmkay, so I'm assuming I start R1 with my rebuttals since 3 rounds is too small. I;ll post it in a few hrs.
Posted by diegofurlan 6 years ago
Well, that is another factor in abortion. I was basing my argument in the field of murder. However, if you'd like to take this debate in general as well as murder for abortion, I'd be content with both that way we have a stronger and more sophisticated debate.
Posted by jm_notguilty 6 years ago
Is R1 for acceptance or not?

And are we debating Abortion in general or are we debating 'Abortion is murder' ?

Need a response before I post. :))
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: CONDUCT: forfeit from con. ARGUMENTS: Because of the forfeit, lots of important points were dropped. SOURCES: More sources and more reiable sources from PRO.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: F