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


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
Areisx 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: 12/26/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 306 times Debate No: 98456
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




A woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her own body. Therefore, abortion is allowed.

Rules: No new arguments in R4, just rebuttals.


I accept this debate. I would also like to be accepted that I am not bound to defending abortion in cases of rape and where death of the mother is considered a possibility at childbirth. It would be deemed not only irrational to rebuke abortion under those circumstances, but an outright expression of sheer stupidity.
Debate Round No. 1


I accept that clause.

The fetus needs the body of the mother to survive. If human A needs a part of human B to survive, e.g. a kidney transplant, it is entirely up to human B whether or not he wants to give human A a kidney. Even if human B is dying and his kidneys will rot with him, he decides what to do with his own body. Even if human A's life is at stake and human B's life is already over, with rotting kidney's, it's still human B's right to choose what to do with his dead body.

If the fetus can survive on its own, then abortion is more of an up in the air debate. However, if the fetus needs the mother's body (which it does), abortion comes down to the simple principal of a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body.

By letting the fetus control a woman's body, you are granting a fetus rights to someone else's body. No one has rights to anyone's body but that person. Period

A fetus needs a mother's body to survive. If the mother does not want to let the fetus use her body, it doesn't have to. The fetus is a part of a parasitic relationship; although its body is affected, it's using the body of the mother to survive.


I have persistantly fought myself over this subject. I have switched sides on abortion more times than I could care to count. I attempt to solidify my perspective on Abortion would be deemed futile by many. Hopefully, this debate will bolster anyone's ability to make a thorough decision on a topic that impacts the people that seldom participate in activities.


Adressing the facts would confer clarity in this debate not only to me, but to Pro. If I were aborted, than I would prove unable to have this captivating debate with Pro. It is undisputable that if any of our mothers decided to get an abortion, than we simply would not exist. Such a thought of being aborted should be as daunting as being murdered. Being murdered is essentially having the oppurtunity of life taken away. What is abortion? All those fetuses' have the oppurtunity of life, yet that oppurtunity is taken away.

C2: Fetus dependency

Many people who are pro-choice claim that it is the fetus's dependency that diffrentiates the fetus from the baby. Adhering to this logic would allow termination of life deemed acceptable and legal if the life is dependent upon another human. Adherence to this logic would allow killing a baby after it is born to be deemed plausible. Babies are extremely dependent on adults for food, water, shelter, and social connections. 75 year olds who are extremely dependent on others to carry out basic actions should die, because they are dependent on those humans for survival. Adherence to this logic justifies murder of dependent people.

Debate Round No. 2


Abortion is not murder. This was already addressed above. Not letting someone use your body is NOT murder.

Is it murder to not give someone dying of thirst your water? No. Is it murder to not give someone who needs a kidney your kidney? No. Same logic applies. Their lives are being "taken away," yet it's completely acceptable and not murder. Example debunked.

As for the baby needing parental guidance, sure, that may be true. However, it does NOT need a specific person's body to survive; in other words, it can survive with the help of ANY adult. Furthermore, anyone logical would agree that once the mother has the baby, she already had her chance to abort. No one, including myself, would ever argue it's okay for a mother to kill her baby. The two are completely unrelated; introducing a strawman such as this hurts your argument. Example debunked.

Furthermore, there are plenty of negative externalities of forcing mothers to have kids they don't want. In the USA alone, there are 100k orphans waiting to be adopted.

This is WITH free and legal abortions. Imagine how many orphans we would have if EVERYONE was forced to give birth. Think of how damaging these many unwanted babies would be to society. Who is going to pay for them all? Take care of them all? Wouldn't that drain resources from the other babies, negatively affecting their lives? The list goes on, and this is only ONE of the many consequences.

What about the emotional damage you inflict on the mother for forcing her to have a pregnancy she doesn't want or isn't ready for? What about the emotional damage inflicted on the CHILD, to know he's unwanted and was a mistake? etc.

It is clear when one looks at both sides of the argument the reasons to be prochoice vastly outweigh the reasons to be antiabortion.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 2 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.