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


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  
Debate Round Forfeited
chrisfris has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 396 times Debate No: 98366
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




A woman should have the right to choose what to do with her body.


Many women think they have the right to choose what to do with their body. However, if it comes to giving birth, it is not their own body they are controlling. It is the child that is growing in the womb and it should be the child that should decide what to do with his/her body. So a woman indeed has the right to choose what to do with her body, but she does not own the right of killing the (unborn) child).
Debate Round No. 1


The problem is, a fetus is NOT a child. Yes, it has the POTENTIAL to be a child; however, it is not the same thing as a child. You are making the false analogy that fetus=child. No, fetus=fetus. Child=child. Fetus has the potential to BECOME a child, but fetus does not equal child.

Baby girl=baby girl. Teen-age girl=teen age girl. Baby girl has the POTENTIAL to become teen-age girl, but it is not a teen-age girl. It is a baby girl.

When the fetus BECOMES a child, then it is no longer a part of the mother's body.


I have to disagree on that one. Indeed, people wouldn't call a fetus a child. However (and this really depends on your definition of human), it is possible to see a fetus as a independent human being. Especially in the later stages of the growing process (where the abortion normally happens), he/she already has many own biological functions, so not shared with the mother. This means that killing a fetus can definitely be considered a murder.

To come back on your argument. That is of course nonsense, because you can give things different names, for example you can call a Fiat a car so the proposition Fiat=car is definitely true. Same could be said about fetus and child, but I prefer calling the fetus just a fetus, since the definitions do differ in this case.
Debate Round No. 2


Just because a fetus shares some biological functions with a human does NOT make it the same thing. A baby girl has some of the same functions of a teenage girl; however, they are NOT the same thing as well.

Murder only applys to humans; a fetus is not human. Therefore, killing a fetus is not murder.

A fiat is a car; however, not all cars are fiats. A fiat is a SUB category of a car. This is an incorrect analogy because a fiat is a TYPE of car, a fetus is NOT a type of human, because a fetus is a part of its mother's body. Human beings don't live in the bodies of other people.


I clearly said that with some definitions of human (clearly not yours), fetuses can be seen as independent human beings. Not everyone will see them as human beings, I never said that, but even if, let's say, half of the people will see you as a murderer, this should definitely be forbidden (you don't want to be half a murderer either, do you?).

About your fetus is not child thingy, just because fetus is not the same word as child, it doesn't mean those are not the same things. I came here up with a better example (credits to Willard van Orman-Quine): bachelor = unmarried man. All bachelors are unmarried men and all unmarried men are bachelors. You might consider heavily restating your argument.
Debate Round No. 3


It's a very simple argument: fetuses need the mother's body in order to survive. If a human needs an organ, e.g. a kidney, are you forced to give them it so that they survive? No, because you can do whatever you want with your own body.

If someone needs part of your body to survive, you are under NO obligation to give them that part of your body, even if you are dying and your kidney's rot with you rather than help someone else. You are allowed to do what you want with your body; if a mother doesn't want a fetus to use its body to survive, it doesn't have to let it.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by PhilosophicalNoodles 1 year ago
These two are really good at this debate, I wish the best of luck to you comrades! I'm for Kelisitaan right now, but chris is good at arguments.
Posted by Kelisitaan 1 year ago
How do you know that no baby or infant can live without the help of an adult? Maybe in the world we live in they can't; however, I'm sure it's possible that a child could actually survive without any adult help at all.

Moreover, just because a fetus has DNA does not make it human; sperm has partial DNA as well, does that make it human? A fetus is a part of the mother's body; it is inside her, living off of her body.

The argument has nothing to do with protecting the defenseless; it has to do with a fetus not being human.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
Abortion is a confession to a crime, the crime is only be associated to her body. Abortion does not describe all choices it is creating a fix outcome. In defense of the United States Constitution a legal choice should be offered which does not incriminate the Medical Doctor or the woman.
So this challenge is clear for common defense and general welfare a title such as Gender Specific Amputation has been presented to represent the United States Constitution in this matter.
Posted by toothdok50 1 year ago
The typical argument of a mother being able to choose what to do with her body is flawed in that a fetus is not part of a woman's body. This is fact and its borne out by the reality that a fetus possess a unique DNA that is different from the mother. Terminating this unique organism's life before it is functioning independent of the mother, is the issue. Should the law protect the mother's right to "control her body" or the fetus' right to life? When these become mutual incompatible, on which side does the law come down?
That's the essence of the question. Do we, as a society, protect the defenseless. Do we call on our citizens to ascribe to be a protector to those that cannot protect themselves? Or, do we call our people to look out for self-interest and take a decidedly more egocentric attitude?
Understanding an argument is often best achieved when we compare it to similar situations that might be a little less esoteric. Consider a mother--with a child strapped to her body via a harness. If that mother should that attempt to take her own life with the child strapped to in an unsuccessful suicide attempt by jumping from a building, one would have to determine if that was an attempted murder as well. The mother deemed it within her right to take her life and chose what she did with her body and life, but did she have the "right" under the law to take the child's life as well? One would be hard press to find many that would say yes.
The immaturity of the fetus and its inability to support is own life independent of the mother, somehow justifies the pro-choice stance on this issue. I cannot understand this sort of reasoning, as no baby, infant or toddler can live without the aid of an adult. As the law requires responsible parenting postpartum, should it not also require such prepartum?
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.