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


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  
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: 2/5/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 936 times Debate No: 86096
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




Abortion isn't murder. Fetuses aren't sentient beings, and the only time that abortions could be performed when they are sentient is in cases of medical emergencies. Abortion needs to stay safe and legal. Not everyone has access to contraceptives, and there are still cases of rape, incest, abuse, etc. Making abortion illegal would not stop abortions, only make them more dangerous. "Coat hanger" abortions pose a serious risk to the pregnant person, they could die from internal bleeding, infection, or any number of other things. Finally, banning abortion infringes on bodily autonomy. The pregnant person has no obligation to allow the fetus to live off their body. Such cases as McFall v. Shrimp and Roe v. Wade indicate this perfectly. There are also many cases where the person got pregnant but cannot physically or mentally handle a child. Or, there are cases in which a trans person got pregnant and it caused them severe dysphoria. No matter the reason, abortion should be safe and legal for everyone. Not your uterus, not your opinion.


Abortion is never a mere personal choice but a grave offense against God and His creation. The anti-abortion struggle has always been a religious battle and foremost in its ranks have been Catholics across the country. This is because Church teaching on abortion is clear and unequivocal: Abortion is murder. There are no exceptions allowed, no compromises possible.
The continuing war on terror has lead to a renewed national consciousness of the high price of war, and, for many, a heightened desire for peace. Yet, despite all this concern, the most horrible war of all has gone all but unnoticed. This is a war going on within our own borders, and it has claimed 57 million American lives in the last 43 years.

This scourge is as horrible as anything terrorists can fathom, because it strikes at the very core of humanity and our country: the family. By destroying the most basic human bond of all"that between mother and child"abortion dissolves the precious glue that binds our nation together.

While mother and child are the first victims, there is not a single element of society that is not affected by abortion. Mother, child, father, husband, aunt, uncle, friend, sibling and grandparent alike suffer the scars of the abortionist"s scalpel. Peace abroad is meaningless without peace at home.

This is the definition given in any respectable medical textbook. To declare a beginning of life at any point after the fusing of a wife"s egg and a husband"s contribution is irrational and an exercise in sophistical chicanery. Only machines such as clocks and cars come into existence part by part. Living beings come into existence all at once and gradually unfold their world of innate potential. A living human person begins to exist at the moment of conception, even though only as a cell. What is important is not the accident of size or weight but the essence " which is fully human. The unborn baby has a distinct, unchanging and unrepeatable genetic code, unique in all of history, from the moment of conception till death. Nothing is added except nutrition and oxygen.

Debate Round No. 1


I'd like to thank you for your acceptance of my debate. I look forward to it. I'd like to clarify a few points in my own argument: firstly, I'd like to begin by saying that women are not the only people who can get pregnant, and men are not the only people who can get people pregnant. While I don't know your stance on trans issues, I do want to be inclusive in my language in this debate. I'd also like to point out that bodily autonomy is an inalienable right, guaranteed to all sentient beings. In addition, I would like to say that not everyone shares the religious belief or Christianity. Your own spiritual belief, in my opinion, is no reason to deny someone their choice.

In conclusion of the first paragraph, I will keep my debate secular and gender-inclusive, regardless of if you choose to do the same.

Abortion is not murder, by the very definition of murder. The definition given by Google is "the premeditated, unlawful killing of one human being by another". While abortions are often "premeditated", by the word's very definition, they are not unlawful and have no reason to be, ruling out one of the main points in the definition. Also, the fetus is not sentient, and this definition's use of "human being" counts sentient beings and sentient beings only.

Comparing abortion to war is, in my opinion, quite insensitive, especially considering what our soldiers fight for. They fight for freedom, and bodily autonomy is included in that. War includes murder, first of all, the definition of which I have already reviewed.

The family itself should be a choice, a responsible one between people involved. And while I do believe this, abortion is the pregnant person's choice first and foremost. If the pregnant person has no desire to allow the fetus to use their body, they have no obligation to do so. As I mentioned before this is outlined in Roe v. Wade ( and McFall v Shimp ( These two cases show the importance of bodily autonomy in any and all cases, even if they could be used to sustain the life of another. This brings me to my next point: the fetus does not have an automatic right to use the body of the pregnant person to maintain life. This is especially true if the pregnant person cannot physically or mentally handle a pregnancy, but is true in all cases as well.

The life of the fetus does not begin at the point of conception. Zygotes do not, by the definition of the word, have sentience, and because of that they can not be considered living. The genetic code, while unique to this person, is still no reason to infringe upon bodily autonomy.

An article on bodily autonomy can be found here:
My definition of murder can be found here:


Yes, abortion is wrong. The Lord has said, "You shall not murder," (Exodus 20:13). The life that is growing within the mother is a child, a baby. The Bible looks at the life in the womb as a child. Exodus 21:22 says, "And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide," (NASB).1

The main concern of the "Pro-Choicers" is not the guarded protection of the life in the womb. Instead, the main concern is the "rights" of the mother over and against the rights of the child growing in her. The child, who cannot exercise its own will, is killed. And, in order to make the killing more palatable, the baby is called a "fetus" or "non-viable" or "not yet human," etc. This eases the conscience. But, for those who say the baby isn't "viable," have you ever seen a sonogram of an abortion? You can see the "non-viable fetus" retracting from the instruments of death and seeking self-preservation. It wants to live. Some would respond by saying that even a rodent wants to live. But what is in the womb of the mother is human.

The Bible says for people to protect the weak and down-trodden. But with abortionists, the rights of the baby are sacrificed for the rights of the mother, and the father doesn't even have any rights. The mother cries out that the life in her is part of her body and that she has the right to do with her body as she wills.

True love does not seeks its own but is other-centered. It gives. "For God so loved the world he GAVE his only begotten son . . . " (John 3:16). Abortion is the ultimate in selfishness. It puts the mother's convenience and desires above the life of her own baby. To kill the baby in the womb means to consider oneself more important than anyone else.

Even in nature, as far as I understand, animals don't kill what is in their own wombs. People are the only ones who kill their young while still unborn. In this society of "self esteem," "personal accomplishments," and "empowerment," true love is losing out, and death is winning.

However, there is hope in Jesus. If you've had an abortion, you can be forgiven by the Lord. All you need to do is confess it to the Lord Jesus and ask Him to forgive you. That is what I did years ago when the girl I lived with became pregnant and had an abortion. I was guilty. As a man, the inner turmoil and guilt I felt was horrible. I can't imagine what it would be like for a woman. Nevertheless, the Lord has graciously forgiven me and her. I say this only in the hopes that others would come to find the sweet forgiveness found in Jesus.

Nevertheless, the unbeliever is not convicted by the Words of God. So, I've presented what I consider a logical argument against abortion.
A rational Case against Abortion

What is growing in the womb of the woman is alive.
Even one-celled creatures are alive.
What is growing in the woman is more than a one-celled creature.
The nature of the life is human.
It is the product of human DNA, therefore, its nature is human.
Because it is human in nature if left to live, it will result in a human baby.
Humans are humans and not because they have a feet, hands, walk vertically, and speak, etc. They are humans because of their nature.
A person born without arms and legs is still human.
A person who cannot speak is still human.
A person in a coma, helpless, unaware, unmoving is human.
What is growing in the womb does not have the nature of an animal, a bird, or a fish. It has human nature.
To abort the life, which is human in nature, is to kill that which is human in nature.
Therefore, abortion is killing a life which is human by nature.
Where, then, does the mother get the right to kill the human within her.

Objections Answered

The life in the womb is not human because it is not fully developed.
This disregards the fact that the nature of the life is human. It has human DNA and is alive. How can its nature not be human if it is alive and has human DNA?
This asserts a false premise that someone is not human until he/she is fully developed.
What constitutes full development? One hour before birth or one hour after? Is there really a difference?
Then when did the natures change? When did the non-human nature develop into a human nature?
At what point does it become human, and by what criteria do you make this judgment?
If you cannot decide when, then you are risking killing a person.
The human tissue produced in the woman is the property of the one who produces it.
But if what is growing in the womb is a person, it cannot be owned.
Is the life in the womb property like a cat or a dog that can be owned?
Then when does the child stop being the property of the mother? At birth? At one-year old? Two? Ten? Twenty?
It is animals who are owned, not people--unless you want to reintroduce slavery.
If the tissue is not human but just an organ like the stomach, it belongs to the one in whom it dwells.
But, the stomach is meant to be a stomach. The life in the womb is meant to be a person. They are different by design and nature.
They are different in nature because the stomach does not have the ability to become a human.
But a human has the ability to produce a stomach.
Therefore, being human encompasses its own body but is not defined by it.
The life in the womb is really part of the woman, and the woman has the right to do as she wills with her body.
If it is part of the woman, then does the woman have 4 arms, 4 legs, and 2 heads? Is that what a human is?
It is part of the woman only in the sense that the life is living and growing inside the mother.
Her body is feeding the life. Her body is separate from the life.
The life growing in the womb can even have a different blood type than the mother. It is, therefore, an independent life with human DNA.
Not so. The Law says the woman (and man) do not have the right to take illegal drugs into their bodies.
The reason is that it supports illegal drug trafficking and . . .
It harms others who the user seeks to support his/her habit as well as the harm that can come to another because of the actions of the one under the influence of drugs.
In abortion, no one is hurt since the fetus is not a person.
This is simply begging the question. You assume it isn't human even though it is alive and has human DNA and then pass judgment that it is not a person.
The fetus is alive, and death injures it.
The fetus has the nature of a human and is injured by killing it by scraping, ripping, and/or sucking its brains out as late term abortions are sometimes done.
Then that means the mother has no feelings about the life that has been removed from her womb--that wonderful place that only a woman in her nature has.
Does this really leave the woman uninjured? Countless women are psychologically harmed when they kill the child in their womb.
Rape is a condition that justifies abortion.
Rape is horrible. But why should the child pay for the sins (wrong doing) of another? The baby is innocent of the offense, and his life need not be taken because of the act of another.
If what is in the womb is human, then killing it because of the act of another would be wrong.

Debate Round No. 2


I feel like I'm having trouble responding to this. To me, it is clear that you did not read my arguments, as I already gave a rational outline as to why defining abortion as murder is incorrect by the definition of the two words. I also want to clarify this: I would like some secular, gender-inclusive reasons as to why abortion is wrong. And, Exodus 21:22 is clearly implying that this was a wanted pregnancy by both the woman and the man. Also, the situation described in Exodus 21:22 is domestic violence. It doesn't matter what your belief is, there is no reason to deny bodily autonomy.

The rights of the pregnant person take precedence, as shown in the two cases presented to you. There is no reason for these rights to be denied. Bodily autonomy is inalienable, even if it could be used to provide life to another (again, as shown in McFall v Shimp). This "life in the womb" is not allowed to use the body of the pregnant person without the clear consent of the pregnant person themselves. Also, I'd like to point out before this arises: consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. The fetus is not viable by definition. They are not yet a sentient human being by definition. This is not stated to "ease the conscience". It is stated because it is clear scientific fact.

The person who got the pregnant person pregnant (or, as you state, the "father") does not and should not have rights in the decision. They are not the pregnant person. They do not have the right to infringe upon bodily autonomy, just as the fetus does not have the same right.

I fear for the safety of your previous roommate around you and pray she was not affected by your outright bigotry and unjust disgust at her decision, the guilt you supposedly felt. You, nor her, are not "guilty" of anything. She made the best choice for her, and ultimately, you do not have input in what she does. It saddens me that she had to go through that with a roommate like you, though I do not know the full situation, and I pray she is alright.

Though it doesn't seem like you read my previous argument at all. I am attempting to be civil, to state my point rationally here as I did before. But if you don't read what I say, we'll just be going in circles.


Introduction to the abortion debate

Abortion is the deliberate termination of a pregnancy.
Arguments against abortion

People who believe abortion is morally wrong use arguments like the following.
Killing people is wrong

killing innocent human beings is wrong
human life begins at conception
therefore the foetus is an innocent human being
therefore killing the foetus is wrong
therefore abortion is always wrong

A foetus is a person

A foetus has a unique genetic code
A foetus is a unique individual

Killing potential people is wrong

it is wrong to destroy potential human life
from conception onwards the foetus is a potential human being
therefore it is wrong to destroy the foetus
therefore abortion is always wrong

Killing beings with 'a future like ours' is wrong

it is wrong to kill beings that would have a future like ours if they lived
in most cases the foetus, if not aborted, would have a future like ours
it is wrong to kill such a foetus
therefore abortion is usually wrong

Causing pain is wrong

it is wrong to cause pain and suffering
a foetus is sufficiently developed to feel pain by 18 weeks
therefore it is wrong to carry out an abortion after 18 weeks of pregnancy

Increasing tolerance of killing is wrong

allowing abortion is legalising killing
legalising killing reduces people's respect for life
reducing society's respect for life is a bad thing - it may lead to euthanasia, genocide and increased murder rates
therefore abortion is always wrong

Arguments in favour of abortion (in selected cases)

Most of these arguments are to be read in the context of the first two arguments above. People who don't believe abortion is always morally wrong use arguments like this:
The foetus is not necessarily a 'person' with the right to live

a collection of human cells does not have the right to live just because it is of the human species
otherwise amputating a limb would be murder
a collection of human cells only has the right to live by virtue of certain facts
these are either:
it has reached a particular stage of development that makes it a moral 'person'
it possesses certain properties that make it a moral 'person'

It is not always wrong to end the life of an innocent person

there are many cases where we have to choose which of two innocent people will live and which will die:
conjoined twins, where the operation to separate them may cause one twin to die
mountaineering, when one person can only save their own life by cutting the rope supporting a fallen colleague
the case of a woman who had to abandon one of her children to save the other

'Potential human beings' don't have rights

only 'actual' human beings have rights

The pregnant woman has moral rights too

under some circumstances these may override the foetus's right to live
these moral rights include:
the right to ownership of her own body
the right to decide her own future
the right to take decisions without moral or legal intervention by others
the pregnant woman has the right to life - where not aborting the foetus would put the mother's life or health in danger, she has the moral right to abort the foetus

Debate Round No. 3


I'm not interested in pro-life poetry, or whatever it is you're doing, I'm interested in a debate. This means both sides listen and respond to each other. The point of debate is rebuttal, and so far you have not presented anything I cannot rebut, and when I do rebut it, you present it again. You have provided no secular points to show that abortion is wrong, or at least, none that I did not have abundant proof against. And, I'm afraid, if we continue going in circles, this debate will have no point. I would like answers to these questions, if you would:

1) Why do you refuse to include trans people in your discussion of abortion?
2) Why do you think non-pregnant people should have rights over the pregnant person's body?
3) Why do you think non-sentient beings are given the same concrete rights clearly stated as belonging to sentient beings, by both science and the government itself?


Abortion should be illegal. Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided

Roe v Wade was a landmark in 1973 and paved the way for abortion to become legal in the US. The decision declared that it was a "Fundamental Right" for a woman to have unrestricted access to an abortion in the early weeks of pregnancy and the restricted ability to abort in later weeks. The decision was based on a right to privacy which was declared by the Supreme Court (7-2) to cover the right to terminate a pregnancy. However later Supreme Court Justices have considered that the 1973 Supreme Court went beyond its remit because the US constitution has no guarantees as to privacy and abortion is an issue for legislators not judges.

Many US States felt uncomfortable with this decision and have passed laws to require women seeking an abortion to pass through several steps. This can include having a pre-termination ultrasound or attending a counselling session. The pro-choice movement is uncomfortable with these state restrictions and characterizes several States as "hostile" to abortions. However these restrictions, when seen in a worldwide context, are not unreasonable. In many countries similar to the US access to abortion is much more difficult; in Ireland, for example, abortion is illegal in all but the direst of circumstances such as where the health of the mother is compromised by the pregnancy.

Abortion should be illegal because it denies babies their constitutionally protected right to life

When the United States became an Independent Nation the Founding Fathers declared "All men are created equal"with certain unalienable Rights"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution provides that no person should be "deprived of life" without recourse to the due process of the law. At conception a new life comes into being, one with a unique genetic code and the unlimited potential for greatness that is latent in all humans, the development into a baby, then toddler, child, teenager, adult is inevitable.

However, aborting a fetus deprives it of life and the ability to enjoy its future liberty and the pursuit of happiness. An abortion deprives a fetus of life without any recourse to due process. The fetus is unable to defend itself. Roe v Wade held that a fetus does not become a person until the moment of birth. This can, however, lead to bizarre situations where doctors in one room of a hospital will be attempting to save the life of a premature baby while doctors in the next door operating theatre are performing an abortion on a healthy fetus of the same age

Attempts have been made to persuade law-makers to declare an unborn fetus a person for the purposes of the 14th amendment but they have not, to date, been successful. Since 2010, however, increasing restrictions on access to abortion have been implemented in a number of US States.

Abortion should be illegal because it is murder

Unborn babies are protected from murder and violence by the federal act "Unborn Victims of Violence". The act considers an unborn baby to be a human being and imposes penalties on those who inflict harm on a fetus otherwise than through an abortion. In addition to the Federal Act 38 US states have separate fetal homicide laws. The laws of 23 of those states protect the fetus from the very earliest stages of pregnancy, regardless of viability outside the womb.

These laws make it clear that most people find the killing of a fetus to be repugnant and its life worthy of protection. These same laws, however, permit a mother, one of the two people in the world who should be protecting the fetus and putting its interests above anyone else"s, to have an abortion. If it is unacceptable for a stranger to kill a baby why is it acceptable for a mother and her doctors to do so?

The father of an unborn baby is considered a victim when it is killed by a third party but has no rights at all to prevent or argue against the mother of his child having an abortion.

Debate Round No. 4


Again, I pose my previous three questions, as you did not answer them. I refuse to continue rebutting the same points.

Once again, you have shown that you refuse to be gender-inclusive, and the Roe v Wade subject is your personal opinion on the matter. Furthermore, non-sentient beings do not have constitutional rights. And lastly, abortions should not be restricted in early weeks, pregnant people should not be required to have counseling and ultrasounds. This can cause guilt in people who wanted the pregnancy but were physically/mentally unable to carry it, and the lengthy wait periods caused by these things could render a pregnant person unable to have the abortion in the end.


1) Why do you refuse to include trans people in your discussion of abortion?
Because I dislike trans people.

2) Why do you think non-pregnant people should have rights over the pregnant person's body?
Read the Bible, sweetheart.

3) Why do you think non-sentient beings are given the same concrete rights clearly stated as belonging to sentient beings, by both science and the government itself?
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Midnight1131 2 years ago
What a terrible last round for Con.
Posted by Sincerely_Millenial 2 years ago
I wish the Con used a more scientific argument instead of a religious one. I agree with the religion supporting pro-life, but you are never going to win an argument if you use religion to back it up unless its about religion. There are enough scientific facts on this matter that could've proven your argument so much better. Arguing that Pro needs to "Read the Bible" makes you biased and not fact-based.
Posted by harmoniesophie 2 years ago
You aren't really looking at the aspect of the baby but rather the circumstances that caused the pregnancy... I believe that this is very unjust for the child... just because the parents made a mistake to have the child.. doesn't mean that the child shouldn't have a chance to live... living or not living at conception... it still turns out to be a baby.. a human.... once that baby was born.. it could have had an amazing purpose... there are hundreds of thousands of babies are being aborted per day... Just think... one of those babies could have been the one to find a cure for cancer.. let's just say if Albert Einstein was aborted because he wasn't wanted or considered a baby at conception... we wouldn't have the amazing gift of electricity.
No votes have been placed for this debate.