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
hehehehehehehe has forfeited round #2.
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: 5/28/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,397 times Debate No: 102804
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




One of the most pressing issues of the 21st century- abortion. And it really is one. It questions our moral and ethical values. Even though many people people believe abortion should never be an answer, abortion should be legalised. This is because abortion because the woman"s choice is to be valued.
Firstly, there are many questions to answer and doubts to clear. To what age is it even right? Technically the zygote, which turns into an embryo isn"t really human yet. They don"t have feelings, they don"t technically have rights yet. Yes it is sad, but a fetus wouldn"t even have organs at that time. We can"t look at this emotionally, we have to look at this rationally. There however, should be a line drawn, a certain age where you shouldn"t get an abortion, like 28 weeks, that is when the fetus has blood going into it and life birthed. If the mother wants an abortion afterwards, that"s her loss.

Also, it"s a woman"s choice. It"s a woman"s choice whether she wants a child. It"s a woman"s choice if she wants to endure 9 months of hell. It"s a woman"s choice if she wants to go through the pain of labour. What if the woman had potential to something great, but has to give it up for a child? She might even grow to hate on the child. If the mother got pregnant in school and had to drop out, would it really be worth it? The girl would be too young, too unknowledgeable to be a mother. She wouldn"t have even learnt about biology let alone being a mother. So it"s a woman"s choice.

What if the child can"t be supported? The child could be born into a family without privileges, support, or a real certain future. It may be a single mother, it may be money scarcity, it may be anything. The child may have a bad future awaiting, and may even be put up into adoption anyway. If a mother can"t even look after herself, how can she be expected to take care of another human being? Also, mothers with addictions like drugs, alcohol and smoking would be imposing problems on the fetus, possibly defects, which is unfair on the fetus. Why should the fetus live with disabilities?

Rape is also a huge issue. The mother, may have been raped and imposed with a child. A child could bring major psychological harm to the mother. A 10 year old girl in India, is wanting an abortion for her 21 week old. She was raped by her stepfather. Due to this, if the doctors don"t approve of her abortion, this means she may be psychologically damaged of carrying her stepfather"s child, the one that brutally raped her. Why should this even be allowed? Imagine yourself as a ten year old, carrying a child, while you"re still a child and still have lots to learn. Imagine a twelve year old girl as a victim of incest to have a daughter that is their brothers creation. The psychological harm would be unbelievable.This is why abortion should be allowed, with exceptions like date and reason.

To a certain stage, abortion is not good. 28 weeks? Too old. But we do have to legalize it. We just need a few restrictions on it. How reasonable is having a world without abortion?


I will be taking the position that abortion should not be legal except in extreme cases such as rape, incest, or endangerment of the mother.

The real argument is about drawing the line at a certain point. At what stage is abortion considered amoral or murder? At what stage should the embryo be considered a human? Should the mother have the right to choose what happens with the child? These are all things that need to be considered when deciding what the law should be.

My opponent pointed out that there is a certain stage where we put restrictions on abortions. I would like to expand upon this because I believe this to be the heart of the conversation. I would draw the line sooner and say that abortions should be limited to people with extreme cases. Of course there should be abortion for ectopic pregnancies. Of course a child who is raped by their father should be able to have an abortion. Most Pro-Life people agree with that. It's not even an argument. The real battle is for the common abortions that are unnecessary.

The fact of the matter is that the fetus is definitely alive. Abortion is always taking a life. I think the Pro-Choice side tends to devalue that life by saying it is just a clump of cells. "It isn't a human yet". How many cells do you need to be considered a human? How many nerve endings do you get to have before it is inhumane and torturous? The answer is that this is definitely a life. It doesn't matter how many cells the fetus has or whether it can feel pain or not. It is alive. The only reason people do not acknowledge this is because it makes them feel better about doing it. If you called it what it is, you would feel the gravity of the action.

Just because it is taking a life doesn't mean it is always amoral. We have many exceptions in society where we are allowed to take lives. Most of the time it is when our own life is in jeopardy or when taking the life would be saving other lives in return. For instance, there are laws for self defense when you kill somebody. Euthanasia is now legal in certain places in order to prevent suffering. Capital punishment permits us to take a life in exchange for preventing harm to society. These are all extreme cases to take lives in the real world. So why should it be different just because a child hasn't passed a certain threshold?

Our laws for human rights are outdated. An unborn child has no voice. Nobody will fight for them. The only person to care for the child is the mother. When you become a mother, you are held responsible for the care of a child. Why is the womb a gateway to their right to life? A child who is born prematurely has more rights than a child who is older, but still in the womb.

Murder is always a "choice". If you shoot a dog in the face, you are considered a terrible person. People will scold you and call you terrible. But those same people will fight for the choice for the mother to vacuum her baby out in separate pieces. This is disgusting and not natural. I know of no other animal that would rejects its own pregnancy in the animal kingdom. Really it comes down to fear. Fear that the quality of life for the child is not sustainable. Fear that there won't be enough money to support it.

Abortion is a selfish choice. You are robbing a person of their chance at life. Why is adoption such a horrible decision? It is better for a child to die rather than be given a chance to live with other parents? The whole argument that a child won't have a happy life is bull. You can't say for sure that someone will have a horrible life if they are adopted. You cant assume they will be abused. The reality is that the mother is embarrassed because she got pregnant and can't take care of her baby. It is less humiliating to get rid of it in secret before anybody knows than it is to give the child a chance to live with other parents. It's about the mother's feelings not about the baby's quality of life. If that kid grows up and hates his life, then that is his choice. But what if he grows up and is grateful to have been in this world? With abortion, we will never know. You rob that person of a chance to love and laugh and play and experience this world. If they reject it, that is their choice. Even growing up in an abusive home doesn't mean you aren't grateful for being alive.

What about the real problem? It's not so much about abortion as it is sex education. People need contraception. What the mothers really want is the freedom to have sex without consequences. So why don't we fix it where the problem is? Let's make sure they don't get pregnant in the first place so that they don't have to make this terrible choice. Invest in birth control and teach people about condoms. That is what really needs to happen.

I am not a Christian. I don't think that this moral code is written in a book anywhere. But if we take a step back and look at the reality of what abortion really is, I think it's safe to say it is pretty brutal and disgusting. If you give people an option to do something within the boundaries of the law, they will do it. If you make rape legal, there will be rapists with no remorse. If you make drugs legal, there will be more addiction. And if you make abortion legal, people will do it more frequently than necessary. People need restraint. There needs to be a line that says abortion is not okay.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
Abortion is an irresponsible act of misrepresentation.

Abortion is unconstitutional and can never be made legal. It simple includes more, and more people into several complex crimes.

Abortion is a self-incriminating confession to the crime of murder and not the crime itself. The self-incrimination made is transferable to any-one who makes the confession with no limitation provided by Constitutional law, not just woman, we as people are publicly directed to believe it is not a crime, when in fact it is more than one just crime it is several. Gender Specific Amputation is describing a medical process like abortion with exception it has been spoken about publicly without the self-incrimination of the confession it has been alienated.
Do most woman who believe they have had an abortion really mean to say or legally defended they have had a Gender Specific Apparition or even a Female Specific Apparition? Can these terms be proved in a legal separation civil or criminal as a self-incriminating confession?
Posted by acolevfx 3 years ago
I would be willing to debate you on this topic. Would you be open to it missmedic?
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
I think that men that create unwanted pregnancies must share responsibility. Sterilization for both is a good option, and it has 0 repeat offenders. Men have a say in what can be medically done to their bodies and you want to take that right away from women.
Abortion must remain an option, it just should not be the first, only or best option. A free comprehensive support system must be in place and offered to all women. The American healthcare system does not do this.
Note; Developed countries with the lowest abortion rates, have the best healthcare and education systems.
Posted by acolevfx 3 years ago
I agree. Abortion is a symptom of a larger cause. The real issue is sexual education as I mention in the debate. Making it illegal puts the choice in the hands of the public. Other forms of murder are illegal. It's an exercise in restraint. Why isn't murder legal? It's for a reason. So why should a woman have the right to take a life? The choice shouldn't be whether or not to get rid of the baby. The real choice is having sex without consequences. I don't wish to punish women, but I don't think unborn children should be punished either.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
Abortion is a symptom of a greater problem.
Abortion has a cause.
Making anything illegal removes control.
Do you want to punish women?
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.