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


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: 4/23/2014 Category: People
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 865 times Debate No: 53206
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Round 1: Opening statements
Round 2: Facts/Argument
Round 3: Facts/Argument
Round 4: Closing statements

I look forward to my oppnents opening statements. Good luck

In my opnion, Abortion is wrong. Abortion is basically killing something. It is murder. Which is why it should mot be legalized.


I accept the debate and argue that abortion is not wrong and should remain legal at all occations.

Few definitions to avoid semantics:

  1. 1.
    the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks.

  1. 1.
    relating to the law.
    "the European legal system"
  2. 2.
    permitted by law.

  1. 1.
    concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour.

Standard DDO rules along with the common etiquette and rules apply (no plagarism, no forfeits, cite all sources, show proper debating etiquette, con shall post no new arguments in the last round e.t.c)

Let's try and avoid debating semantics, definitions or topic resolution. The resolution resolved permits to the following:
"The act of Abortion is wrong[immoral] and should not be legal."

If my opponent does not agree to these definitions and my understanding of the debate resolution above which I shall be abiding to he shall object to them either in the comments or in a PM BEFORE posting his next round, the opening case. If he posts the second round and thus starts the debate without both objecting and resolving the issue with me he has agreed to the definition and resolved resolution along with the rules. Neither party of the debate may object, change or challenge to the terms and definitions once the next round has been posted and the debate has been started.

Failiure to abide to any of these terms results in a 7 point forfeit if deemed appropriate and valid by the voters.

You may state your case, assuming you agree to this round.
Debate Round No. 1


I accept these definitions. Your definition of aborition is right, but morally it is wrong. Abortion is the action of killing what is supossed to be human. Making abortion legal would be unethical. Abortion is wrong with exceptions to rape or incest. If someone had sexual intercourse and got pregnant, why didn't they use a condom. Like I said in the previous round, Abortion is basically killing a person. If you legalize abortion, you are basically legalizing murder.


Sorry, this took longer to revise than I thought. Shall we go on?
As agreed to legal is defined as something that is allowed and permitted by law. This is important because if something is illegal then there won't be ANY exceptions to that rule, no situations will be fit for an abortion legally. The structure of my argument is three-fold. One will be dealing with the morality of the action itself, the second one will deal with special exceptions to which my opponent has somewhat conceded to and the third one will deal with how far legal actions can go. In order to win the debate my opponent must not only prove that there is no morally acceptable situation in which abortion is the answer but also that the best way to fight abortion is with legal constraints, he must defend ALL RESOLUTION CONDITION that I'll put forth. With that in mind, let us move on to the first section:

Imagine this if you will: You've just finished your higher education and are free, you have perhaps a year to see the world and experience everything you have not already experienced. You want to love, be loved, be care free and enjoy life. This is a rather rational wish, isn't it? What are you going to do if I come along and lock the door and tell you that you are not allowed to go anywhere, that you cannot live your dreams to your fullest and chain you to your house. Would you consider me to be breaking your human rights? Of course I would be. You'd most likely sue me for breaking your freedom of life. You never had a chance to live your dreams. Did I violate your right? Is it morally correct of me to obligate you to abandon your dreams? Of course it isn't. But this is happening every day everywhere and we cannot deny that.

But what if the “I” in this story is replaced with an infant. Is it still morally incorrect? Is it still morally correct to force a woman to abandon her life and dreams and force her to birth a child she does not want to have, essentially trying her to her house? No, the scenario in it's core is unchanged. It is her body and legally obligating her to having the child and denying her her right to choose is just as immoral as my first scenario. On what grounds? The rights of the unborn infant?

Why is it so that my opponent will argue that the right of a random cluster of cells that have just as much independent life as a small part of your skin has more right than the mother? The cell cluster has no thoughts, it is not self-aware, it cannot think, does not have feelings, does not show signs of sentient life and is in no definition of the word more human than the bacteria in your intestine. Yet my opponent indirectly wishes to argue that it has priority, that it's rights are somehow “
more important” than the rights of the mother who does show all signs of intelligent life, human emotions and the ability to be self-aware. What makes her rights so much lesser than the rights of the child? Since we cannot keep the human rights valid for both parents and children my opponent must answer the following question to win: Why is the unborn infant more worthy of human rights than the parent?

A child is not a human any more than a blueprint is a house. it has all the potentials to be a house, but it isn't a house. demolishing an already built structure just so the blueprint gets a chance to be a house as well is absurd. Abortion,
under con's set of arguments, is just as moral as violating human rights, so which would you rather choose?

When is it “ok” to abort?

Assuming that abortion becomes illegal in all cases: Will there be no exceptions?
My opponent wishes that rape abortion is still legal. On what grounds? Why is that still legal? Is there in fact a difference?

Be careful however: because I am going to tell you right now that this is a trick question: for I am going to use whatever you answer against you. There are a minuscule amount of answers that are fitting for rape-pregnancies that are not ALSO compatible with regular pregnancies. So, either my opponent finds a great reason for abortion in case of rape that does not fit at some level with a regular abortion or he falls from his case and fights that all abortions are illegal.

This leads us to the first major contradiction in my opponents case. When we're not talking about rape a fetus has potential, it might live a great life, could be given away to an orphanage and has rights that must not be violated, its murder. But when the child is a result of rape, it has no potential? What makes this child right less? It had nothing to do with the rape, it's not it's fault. Why should it be discriminated against when some other fetus has all the rights in the world? Does the history of the father make this child any worse? Is it evil and deserves to die because it has a rapist father? It's the same child, it has the same rights, abortion is not an exception. Any set of logic that my opponent can find to protect or diminish rape infants will also hold for infants that are not a rape result

if my opponent cannot defend the “paradox” that a child that is the result of rape has less human rights than any other child, he has lost the debate.

But we still have an unaddressed issue: My female friend.
See, I have a female friend. She unfortunately isn't perfectly healthy: and should not try and complete a pregnancy since doing so will most likely result in her health worsening or she simply dies from physical trauma. Let's assume she becomes pregnant. Are you to expect it from her to actually carrying trough with her pregnancy and risking her life? If the government forces her to finish it and she dies. The government is now guilty of the murder of a young woman that could have been avoided. Why should she not have an abortion? It is literally the only method for her, the only option that does NOT result in a bad ending. What does my opponent want to do for my friend?

Is legal banning a solution?
The law is meant to be broken. This isn't something that is generally supported or correct, but it is still so. The harder we press to ban a certain matter the more active it gets. You can look at drug abuse and prostitution to see that. It's still peaking again and again, underground it flows like water and we cannot stop it, we cannot monitor it. Whatever is banned becomes black market material. Abortion is no different. Abortion is LEGAL and still over 700.000 die from ILLEGAL operations[1]. If abortion is banned illegal operations will only increase, will only spiral out of control. When something is legal we have a chance to monitor it, tax it and make sure safety regulations and health conditions are always met to protect the mother for instance. with abortion becoming black we can no longer monitor it, it becomes hidden, unsafe and dangerous. Think clamping the limbs and dragging them out is bad? Sticking a metal coat hanger inside the genitalia of the woman and scraping the child out is much worse and the child STILL dies. We now have a third condition:
If my opponent cannot explain how illegal operations can be dealt with in a safe, efficient manner, he has lost the debate.

I'll cover adoption in my next round: I just ran out of room for now.

I hope you see that abortion is in fact moral when we shift the perspective. The mother is in danger, she might have been raped, her human rights are on the line, she is looking at a nearly $241,080 expense and a lifetime of unwanted commitment. And for what? The rights of a few cells that are not humans in any other sense apart from the potential to become one later on. Because the condom broke, the pill failed, a rape. That is a big fall for a small reason. Choosing between human rights isn't easy, but I hope you all see that the rights of those born should be greater than those that are not born, and are little more than just a blueprint to a house.


Debate Round No. 2


Everyone has rights. If you want to abort someone, then go ahead. Kill something that was supposed to life. Again, morally abortion is wrong.


My opponent has not refuted any of my arguments and has only made unsupported claims that he did not effeciently defend or provide evidence for and he has not given me an answer to any of the questions I asked him. I therefore extend all of my arguments from the last round as they all went untouched.

To provide some form of content for this round:

"Everyone has rights."
Including the mother, so why do you think her rights should be broken for the rights of something that is not born?

"If you want to abort someone, then go ahead."
This is completly against your pole: should I read that as a consession?

"Kill something that was supposed to life."
Can you prove that statement? It is not a human any more than your sex-cells are humans. The act of abortion is just as immoral as using birth control. Are you going to defend that those should be illegal? Birth control prevents the would-be fetus to be born and thus kills something that was supposed to live. Why should bc be legal if abortion isn't? are you proposing that the only valid sexual intercourse should be for reproduction?

Abortion protects the life of the mother. the reasoning "Don't because it kills something that has no self-awareness!" is not going to hold valid.

"Again, morally abortion is wrong.
How so is it morally worse than forcing the child upon an unwilling mother? My opponent cannot ignore this point and must answer it, along with all others, in the next and final round.
Debate Round No. 3


How is abortion not murder. It is wrong to things like this. I understand that if a mother does not want to have a baby, but maybe they will learn something.

Thank you for this argument. You were good.


How I abortion any further murder than using birth control or masturbate? Both are hindering the potential life of a human which seems to be the only argument that my opponent had to offer.

And I think we've passed the "maybe she will learn her lesson and never have sex."
I don't think that a one night fling with a condom that breaks really should be a punishable act with the fine of more than 18 year of commitment, 9 month pregnancy which is a pain already, birth, a complete lack of sleep for the first year or so, having her entire life limited hundredfold, and paying a minimum fine of $241.080: The costs of lego not included.

Would you honestly be willing to choose between only having sex when you absolutely are certain you want children (because accidents do happen), something men don't really have to consider since they can sleep with whomever they want and then vanish off the face of the earth for all she knows, and have little or no restrictions. However, making abortion illegal poses serious restrictions to females and gives off the message that women do not have the rights to themselves and to choose. Either they have sex and if an accident does happen they just have to shut up and face the punishment or not be allowed to do what they want to, even if that is just to have a little fun under the starlight. This is a massive step backwards when it comes to female social position and equality: That women do not have a choice, do not have the ability to decide for themselves and should just be there for reproductive purposes.

It is either the "murder" of something that never lived against brutally breaking the rights of someone that has been living for q minimum of nearly two decades, give or take a few years.

To conclude:

In the beginning of my case I asked my opponent a few questions that his entire case hung on, a few questions that he really needed to answer in order for his case to hold up. He did not answer these question; and in hindsight he didn't do much to even protect his case. I showed you, dear readers, how abortion, be it moral or not, is a needed thing and making it illegal is not a steo forward, it isn't saving anyone and there are a lot of cases where it just does not apply. abortions are not going away soon, they'll just change form if we would try and stop them. Abortions would no longer just remove the fetus, but possibly harm the woman and even killing her. This is not a future for us, and thus we conclude that abortion is not the dreaded thing my opponent wishes it was.

thank you also for the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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