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


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
angel_with_horns 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: 8/21/2016 Category: News
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 753 times Debate No: 94877
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




Homicide is the deliberate taking of a person"s life by another person. If someone commits homicide, they can be put in prison for a life sentence, or under certain circumstances be executed. Abortion is the deliberate "procedure" of taking an unborn baby's life. The key word is deliberate. In both cases however, someone"s life is taken by another person on purpose. In 1973, the supreme court"s decision over Roe Vs Wade effectively legalized abortion in all fifty states, opening abortion clinics all over the nation. Norma McCorvey, also know as Jane Roe, was dragged into the Roe vs Wade case. She wanted an abortion, and it was this that led to her being behind the Supreme Court"s ruling. She says it is the number one regret in her life. She wishes she had known what she was getting into.. She hates that because of her abortion is legal. In other words, murder is legal. If the person behind the thousands of Planned Parenthood's is Pro Life, shouldn"t that mean something? Anything? Or even everything?


I accept the debate and wish my opponent good luck.

Contention 1: The Constitutional Battle

Many opponents to abortion constantly argue that Abortion is unconstitutional. This is completely far from fact. Abortion, in it of itself, is Constiutional. The first is that it protects the right to privacy. This is important as it shows that you own your body [1]. When we extend this all across the issues we can see that this can be extended to other key areas making sure the law has to protect your privacy. This includes things like limiting just how far the TSA can search at air ports. Another is preention of organ harvesting by the government. Unlike China, the US is not able to simply harvest the organs of prisoners nor the dead without their consent. Why is this you may ask? This is simply due to the fact that the individual owns their body. If you take that away, then you open up a whole new area the government can do that they haven't been able to do before. All of which are immoral acts. Roe V Wade, was a great decission for limiting the government.

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to thejurisdiction thereof, are citizens of theUnitedStates and of the State whereinthey reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge theprivilegesorimmunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any Statedeprive any person of life, liberty, or property, withoutdueprocess of law; nordeny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
US Constitution, 14th Amendment

A lot of people site the Constitution for the "Right to Life," but the Constiutional fact is that, you have to be born in the United States in order for these rights to apply to you. So even though it may or may not be alive, it is not considered a US citizen, hence have Constitutional rights, until they are born, not at conception.

Contention 2: Abortion reduces Crime

In the 1980s, crime was increasing and many people were fearing that the 90s would be a mega crime decade, but that never happened. Many people tend to site Gun control or many other factors, but the real solution was abortion. Crime, all across the board, began to fall. The reason is that all of the unwanted babbies that would be born into poverty and would turn to crime were never born. Welfare, crime, drug use, and a long list of other criminal activities fell because of this [2]. Homocide, and property crimes had fallen by 30% which had been at the lowest rates since the end of the end of the Prohibition. We also need to look at a lot of the factors that play into this. In this research they found that a lot of the women that would have had abortion, their children would engage in illegal activities harming soceity [5]. Studies by University of California found that 76% of the women who are turned away from abortion are likely to become unemployed, on welfare, compared to the 40% that have abortions [6]. 30% is a huge difference. They are also more likely to stay with their abusive partner leading to a higher amount of domestic violence. This is something that no one, men, women, or children, have to be forced to live through. Making abortion illegal will cause these harmful things to occur by forcing a women to have an unwanted child.

The Colorado Department of Health and Environment stated that, "unintended pregnancies are associated with birth defects, low birth weight, maternal depression, increased risk of child abuse, lower educational attainment, delayed entry into prenatal care, a high risk of physical violence during pregnancy, and reduced rates of breastfeeding.[3]"

On top of this, the CDC reports that 49% of all pregnancies are unintended [4]. We can see that by making abortion illegal, we can see that we would be severly harming the mother as well as leading to harm for the child which would harm there lives leading to much of the life of crime that would have had not occured. A child that is not wanted and one that would cause massive harm as well as dettremental effects to soceity should not have to be born into this world as it would simply just cause everyone pain.

1. (
2. (
3. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, "Family Planning Program," (accessed Apr. 21, 2014)
4. (
5. John J. Donohue, and Steven D. Levitt, "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 2001 (Despite admitting to an error in one of this study's tables, Levitt has stated that "the story we put forth in the paper is not materially changed by the coding error." See Steven D. Levitt, "Everything in Freakonomics Is Wrong!,", Nov. 28, 2005)
6. Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), University of California at San Francisco, "Turnaway Study," (accessed Apr. 22, 2014)
Debate Round No. 1


First let's start with woman's rights. You see, may people believe that women have the right to choose what they do with their body. But that doesn't justify abortion at all. First off, if it is a women right, how come they are murdering women? 50% of the babies aborted are women, where are there rights.Second, "My Body, My Choice" would apply to YOUR body, but not a second creature IN your body. Many argue that the baby is still dependent on the mother, thus it is apart of her body. Let me put this into perspective for you; the elderly are dependent on people, should we shoot them because it's "our choice"? No, that seems crazy, but the same concept with the unborn.

Abortion is a dangerous process filled with sick workers. The people who work at abortion clinics are not given a good name. The workers at Planned Parenthood have been known for selling baby body parts from the dead babies they abort. The dead babies become incoming cash, Also, another abortion clinic, Tiller"s Abortion Clinic, is founded by Doctor Tiller who does terrible things to the women causing the women great pain, and gives them illegal medicine. But, when sent to court, Dr. Tiller was convicted not guilty. Abortion doctors have women put things in their body such as leeches, gunpowder, salt, illegal drugs, and shots. These are things that potentially kill the women or affect her in a detrimental way.

Just last year, 2015, in the month of December, Anna Yocca, 31 years old attempted a self abortion using an untwisted coat hanger. The baby survived, but will have lifelong medical issues. She was charged for attempted murder. Now, when Planned Parenthood does the same thine, attempts to kill a baby, and succeeds, they are not charged with murder. In fact, they are praised, and receive money. What"s the difference? Let me answer that for you: none



For this first portion I shall be going over my opponent's opening arguments. My opponent states that we are committing murder in this case, but has yet to actually show how the fetus is a person, we don't even know if it is alive. Here is the actual US legal definition of murder.

Murder- the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority... Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. [1]

By this own status, abortion cannot be actually classified as murder under the status quo and my opponent's case is negated.
We can see in the very legal definition of murder that it must be by a sane person of another. One could argue that the fetus is not indeed sane. It is even stated that abortion is NOT murder under law. Legal authority, in the second portion, comes from the Federal/State government which the mother can have it performed. By US law, abortion, is NOT murder.

The evaluation of life, as defined by Biologists, is done by locating Signs or Characteristics all life possess. While no full list is accepted on a universal scale, at least twelve characteristics are generally used in Biology, often in lists of five or seven. They are as followed [2]:

Organization: Defined as composing of cells.
Genes: To consist of DNA and RNA.
Adaption: Changing to match the environment around it.
Homeostasis: Maintaining a consistent internal environment.
Metabolism: Sometimes called Thermodynamics, it’s the transformation and use of energy.
Response: To react to stimuli or to the environment around it.
Reproduction: To be able reproduce or bear children.
Growth: To grow in size, usually referred to as Cell Growth.
Excretion: Removing wasted from the organism’s body.
Respiration: The intake of gases needed to live.
Feeding: The consumption of resources to live.
Movement: The ability to move that even plants have.

The Fetus must meet these standards to show that the fetus is indeed alive. If not then the fetus is not alive. My opponent has yet to shown that the fetus meets any of these, showing that the fetus isn't alive.

My opponent makes an Appeal to Authority in stating that McCovey made the mistake of causing the case to have its results. My opponent doesn't bring up the sources or even shows how this was the deciding factor. As a result, we have to throw that argument out of the debate.

===Defense of Case===

It wouldn't matter if the fetus is male, female, transsexual, alien, or whatever, it's not a living creature nor a person. The Fetus doesn't have the right to life under law nor has my opponent proved they're alive. We can easily say that there are many things in our bodies that are dependent on us. Tapeworms for example. Tapeworms are parasites that live in the digestive track and can kill someone if they aren't killed. Are we to say that we shouldn't get rid of them since they depend on the human [3]? My opponent then moves on to a Red Herring in bringing up the elderly. They meet the quality of life while the fetus does not and the elderly have nearly nothing to do with abortion as eugenics aren't the same. This is also a Strawman by my opponent trying to attack eugenics instead of abortion. Through their argument here out of the debate.

This entire 2nd paragraph is a Red Herring. This has nothing to do with abortion. I could easily argue that cops kill innocent blacks and do huge amounts of police burtality. Does this mean that we should abolish our police force? No, this is a terrible argument. Through this argument out of the debate.

I'm glad my opponent brings up the coat hanger abortion, as this is actually something, as I previously brought up, happended a great deal when abortion was illegal. If my opponent's side wins out, this will still happen. This argument should be flown over to my side of the debate. As for Planned Parenthood, I could go into how great of a place it is with all of the services it provides and only 3% is abortion [4]. Should we condemn our entire police force when our police brutality percentage against minorities is a lot higher. What's the difference my opponent asks? One is safe (Planned Parenthood) and the other is dangerous and harms everyone in the process which will occur if abortion is outlawed, which is the Yocca abortion example.

Here's a better question. Which is more Pro-Life? Saving the fetus or letting it kill the mother in the birthing process where the fetus might not even life in the circumstance. If Abortion is outlawed, then you are condemning the 5.6% who die would would rather get a life saving abortion [5].

1. (
3. (
4. (
5. (
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
Crime is expensive and life is cheap........................................that is your argument....................WOW
Abortion is only a symptom of a greater problem and neither of you seem to understand that.
Posted by 2 years ago
Do you want to debate the significance of Jane Roe's current beliefs, or the question of abortion? If the latter I'll do it - if the former no.
Posted by Throwback 2 years ago
100% agreement. Good luck with the 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.