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
chrisl3 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 Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,022 times Debate No: 100536
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)




Pro= Pro choice
Con= Pro life

I would like to have a discussion on the morality of the topic of abortion, and also the legality of it. I personally find abortion a deeply troubling moral subject that we as a society need to come to a consensus about. I think Roe v. Wade was wrongfully decided. Not only on a moral standing, but on a legal standing to.


I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


So for the first round I would like to frame what our beliefs are on this issue. So I have a few questions and I will give my answers to those questions also to give you a better understanding of where my beliefs are to. Then you can respond and state whatever you wish and ask me any questions you would like.

1. When do you believe the baby becomes a human? Conception? sometime in the womb? Or after it has left the mother?

2. Why do you believe this?

3. What situations do you believe the mother's rights supersede the babies rights?

My answers:
1. I believe the baby becomes a human being at conception.
2. I used to believe it was certain weeks along in the pregnancy, but the more you learn about how fast the baby develops the more I realized my beliefs were starting to crash with my morality. This point of when the baby becomes a human is probably the one point where my beliefs have the best chance of getting changed as I don't see to much evidence for either side when it comes to morality.
3. The only situation I see where the mothers rights supersede the babies is when the life of the mother is in danger.


1. It doesn't matter when the baby becomes human...

2. ... because abortion is either killing or denying life to the baby.

3. I don't believe the baby, or anyone else, is entitled to life.

I would consider denying life is a lot worse than standard killing because it doesn't allow any consciousness in the first place.

Understand this: If abortion is illegal because it denies life, then condoms should be to. Under this logic, all types of birth control should be illegal.

Besides the choice to use birth control, there is a similar choice: the choice to try to reproduce. Making abortion illegal under the logic it is killing is very similar to not reproducing every second illegal because it is denying life.

And while not reproducing being illegal is beyond insane, abortion and other birth control types being illegal are insane as well. And more importantly, they have the same affects.
Debate Round No. 2


Con believes that no one not even the baby is entitled to life. I would like everyone to take that statement into account for the rest of the argument. THe question of whether the baby is a human being is absolutely relevant. In fact it is THE question in the abortion argument. If it is a human being it is illegal to kill it because that would be homicide. If it is just another piece of flesh in the women's body you can do whatever you want its basically a kidney,

But lets go back to your no one is entitled to life. So under that logic murder should be legal in your mind? Because that is basically your argument. No one is entitled to life... That in itself is a dangerous statement. It is also a factually untrue statement in the United States. Definition of entitlement " a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract." Considering murder is against the law that is an entitlement.

Now lets tackle your claims that if abortion is illegal all forms of birth control should be illegal. I find this statement dangerous to. To conflate abortion with condoms is a highly suspect claim. The baby starts to become a separate entity when sperm meets egg. A condom prevents that from happening. Abortion is conducted after that process they are not the same.

Next statement was abortion is the same as choosing not to reproduce every second. That is just not the same morally or logically. Abortion is the killing of another human being that has already been created, and choosing not to reproduce is not creating another human being. Under your logic it would be morally correct to kill half the population because the world is overpopulated. Because there is not difference between killing a human and choosing to not reproduce.

You may not believe that we are entitled to "life" but under the law in the United States we as humans are "entitled" to not be murdered.


You are the con ;)

What I meant by entitlement is a mix between 'the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment' and 'the fact of having a right to something'. Anyway, onto my counterarguments.

Abortion is not the killing of a created human, because a fetus is not a created human being. It is still being crafted into a adult human.

Under my logic, it isn't morally correct to kill half the population because morales tell us killing is wrong.

In the United States, we are not entitled to not be murdered, or nobody would be murdered. We are entitled to the government trying to lock up the murder if we are known about and the government doesn't hate us.

Now my argument.

There is a difference between fact and opinion.

Fact is either true (the other definition of fact) or false (fiction).
Opinions are neither true or false but they are often backed up by fact or more accepted opinion.

Whether something exists or not (e.g. God) is the fact type.
All laws and morales are opinions and are not true or false. Right and wrong are opinions as well.

Of course most of the laws have reasonable evidence for them. Murder of born humans should be illegal because the possible victims don't want to be murdered. The fetus however is a fetus and cannot want to not be murdered. Abortion is a type of birth control and like the rest stops birth. The victim of all types of birth control are without a working brain that allows thought of any sort.

I, a human being, operate to not murder others because it is a bad survival ability and therefore a group that has the trait would be dead pretty quick. Because of that, I feel wrong murdering another human being that might not like it. Again, the fetus, the egg, and the possible future child will not not like it because they can't at this time.

I did not say not reproducing and birth control were the same. I said they were similar choices with the same affect. There is a spectrum between not reproducing and standard killing. What sets the line is that, as I have said above, the fetus, egg, possible future child etc. does not have thought or wants. That is what creates the line between okay by law and not.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 11 records.
Posted by RC-9282 3 years ago
Maybe elaborate on your stance and the topic. I would be happy to accept...
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.

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