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


Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Pill_Junkie_Monkey 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: 2/10/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 592 times Debate No: 107864
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)




#1 no ad hominems.
#2 standard rules regarding dropped arguments apply
#3 no new arguments in final rebuttals.

I believe that abortion should be illegal except for when the pregnancy poses an abnormal threat to the life of the mother.

please don't accept if you intend to forfeit.


Hello, I hold the null hypothesis when it comes to the issue of abortion.
Debate Round No. 1


Abortion, despite how it may seem, is not a complicated issue. Either the fetus is alive, and thus is a human life. or it isn't.
there are a number of moral arguments to the debate.
the first moral argument is that scientifically the human fetus meets the criterion to be considered alive from conception (1)" Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity." As we can see, the fetus is genetically human and meets every criterion to be considered alive.

now that we have established that the human life begins at conception I may be faced with the argument from many in favor of abortion that though the organism forming in the womb is alive (if they don't fully reject the known science thus committing fallacy) that it is not a person. this leads me to moral argument number two which is: even if you don't consider the humanity of the organism in the womb, there are plenty of things that exist that are A. not persons. and B. has rights and intrinsic value, for example, dogs or other domesticated animals. To state that simply because you don't consider the human fetus (which is what I shall be referring to the developing child as hereinafter.) to be a person, does not mean that it does not have rights and value. Furthermore, even if you deny the humanity of the fetus, you are still dealing with a potential human life which should be held in higher moral regard than the convenience of the mother or father. Another argument that many of those on the pro-choice side of the argument is that women have the human right to control their bodies. And I am in complete agreement. When it is your body that you are doing something to then you should have every right to do so insofar as it's not self-harm. However, the human fetus is not your body. It is IN your body. as I stated in my first card in the scientific portion of my argument, the human fetus has a separate genetic identity with the restoration of the diploid number of chromosomes. therefore, the human fetus is not a part of the mother's body any more than the child would be after (s)he was born. I hold that the time to control your body would have been before conception IE: using birth control or not having sexual intercourse. one thing that society appears to have forgotten, is that sex is not for pleasure. it is the biological process through which most species ensure the continuation of their species through reproduction (2). if you choose to partake in an action the purpose of which is to reproduce. (thus controlling your body.) then you accept the risk of conception.

Moral argument number 3. does the fetus have any rights, any intrinsic value, and any right to live. well, the collective opinion of society is that the fetus has essentially infinite right to live. when? if and only if the mother decides to keep the child. if she does, society and its laws, regard the fetus with infinite worth and considers it so valuable, that if someone were to kill that child they would be prosecuted for homicide. keeping in mind that the definition of homicide is: the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another (3). we can, therefore, see that if the mother decides to keep her child then the law recognizes it as a person. if she doesn't, the fetus is considered worthless with essentially no right to live. now, does that make sense? it doesn't seem to. either the fetus has worth, or it doesn't. on what moral grounds does the mother alone have the right to decide the fetus' worth?

most people would consider killing the baby once it exits the womb as murder. however, the deliberate killing of the fetus a mere two months before is no more morally problematic than extracting a tooth.

and finally, we need to recognize that there are instances when an abortion simply cannot be considered moral. take for example if the mother or father aborts a child because they prefer boys to girls. as has happened millions of times in China and elsewhere. or any other form of bias or preference of the mother or father simply cannot offer moral grounds for the termination of the human life.

I look forward to a rational and well thought out debate and wish my opponent the best of luck. I eagerly await your response.

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
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
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mosc 2 years ago
John_C_1812 asks the question: What makes abortion the possible? Asta is pro life unless the mother's life is at risk. John_C_1812 declares: "It is a woman"s inalienable right by United States Constitution". This statement utterly bogus. The US Constitution of 1789 never addressed the issue of abortion, neither does the Bill of Rights the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, the latter term refers to the freedom to conduct business without Big Brother telling you how to operate your buisness.

Backwardseden jabbers his ad hominem none sense, it appears he has an addiction to this stupidity. Passwordstipulationssuck correctly points out: ad hominems and non sequiturs aside, you just make bad arguments or you copy paste your arguments then don't understand how to defend them. Hear Hear I second the motion, bunk on Backwards eden's emotional none sense.

The abortion issue, it seems to me, centers upon how a people wants to determine the parameters they agree as a people that they want their society to operate therein. Specifically how far does hedonism have legal permission to operate within a given society. The pro abortion folk, argue for free sex with no obligations. A woman gets pregnant, no problem - abort the baby.

Folk opposed to abortion talk about the unborn baby's rights. Utter nonesense. Opposition to abortion should have nothing to do with the silly question: at what time does a baby possess a living soul. Rather the opponents to abortion should condemn the immorality of hedonism. Young adult do not have a reputation for making good decisions. But then young adults do not rule a country. The burden of leadership rests upon the moral authority of mature adults not young adults. Do mature leaders of society support hedonism. Herein defines the question. Thank You.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
What makes abortion the possible criminal fraud is it only has one legal use. That means anyone who hears the admission in public had legal obligation by law to set request for impartial fact finding trail to telling the truth and create separation of the state of guilt set by admission. It cannot be left to the person telling the admission. Oops sorry, its okay I lied life never started, just ignore I said it officially did.

A woman never had to say life officially started from the beginning. No woman ever had to say life officially started, as no woman can say she, and she herself insures all conception to fulfill requirement to become human life. She simply performs a part in her place, within the circle of life.

The argument here is the single state abortion does not apply to all woman. That simple. There are circumstances which take place where the woman may not have any choice at all, or control. This fact is ignored and forms the lie that is then sold for money, or political gain. We are simply allowed to believe all woman are innocent by liberty. We simply are not allowed to believe all woman are guilty by loss of liberty. The crime is set by if abortion is an admission or not.
Posted by asta 3 years ago
I noticed that passwordstipulationssuck is pro life unless the mother's life is at risk.

I am pro life even when abortion can be used to save the mother's life. It isn't that I'm willing to kill the mother to save the baby, this is a stereotype that many believe of this position. However, I realize that there are other ways to save BOTH LIVES, so sacrificing the fetus to save the mother's life is unnessesary.

Ex: If a woman has breast cancer(BC) and chemotherapy would kill the baby, then there are at least 2 other ways she can get cured of BC that doesn't involve the death of the fetus. These 2 ways are:

- Mastectomy: This is when the breast is removed from the woman to save her life.
- Breast conserving surgery(BCS): As the name implies, this saves the breast while removing the cancer. This is obtained by removing the tumor.

Given that there are other ways to treat this disease and other disases, how can abortion be used to save a woman's life?

Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
I genuinely believe in abortion. It is a woman"s inalienable right by United States Constitution when used to address a priest as a form of confession for religious forgiveness. Other than that one purpose is illegal to legislate to law as it was never created under guidelines of constitutional principle, and when legislated as law asks the public to vote on a self-incrimination as confession to a murder, possibly before it takes place and not only after. There is no context what so ever to believe that a woman"s body is container holding a self-incrimination as criminal confessions.
By grievance to judicial court and general welfare abortion was, and still is a covert declaration to Congressional, and or state legislated Civil War. It openly admits a crime to then recant. It is made by a person who has seen and understands an official start of a process being stopped. It goes on to be easily disqualified as a first Amendment right due to the fact life has self-value, and the process could have been expressed under a united cause much clearer, such as emergency medical treatment when placed in constitutional context. Like Female Specific Amputation.

I do not like the legislation of abortion.
It does not mean I am incapable of seeing its one legal purpose.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
rubber baby buggy bumpers. Oh gosh golly gee gosh darned it all, your opponent basically told you to fry a peanut and bake water just like I did because your intelligence and edumacation is that of an atom as compared to the big bang. Yeah. It is so crystal clear that you have no genuine friends or loved ones just like so so so many christians do here on What do I mean by genuine? Those that will go way way wayyyyyyyy out of their way to help you out in time of dire need and ---never--- ask you a single question. After all mommy and daddy can't continue to snort you forever. But you did it to yourself. You deserve it. You will die alone unless YOU start to pay---attention---to---what---people---tell---you. Oh and I didn't read a single word you had to say because you have nothing to offer to the human race - yet. I'm so very glad I made your noche better. Please do not post me back unless you have something intelligent to say.
Posted by napoleonicflair 3 years ago
@passwordstipulationssuck roast...
Posted by passwordstipulationssuck 3 years ago
Backwardseden is incapable of formulating a coherent sentence without the help of the copy paste tool. anyone who reads our debates can clearly see that it is YOU who cannot debate properly. ad hominems and non sequiturs aside, you just make bad arguments or you copy paste your arguments then don't understand how to defend them.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
Please do not accept any debates by passwordstipulationssuck. He is quite incapable of coming up with any applicable evidence to justify his hogwash debates and are quite hypocritical and contradictory at best. I've debated the cow dung larvae manure spread twice now, and to give you an idea he believes in god and yet his god has committed horrific abortions all throughout his bible! What a true hypocrical contradiction if there ever was one. Look no further than the great flood where his god snuffed out not only babies, children but PREGNANT MOTHERS!!!!!!!!!! The problem with this guy is he CAN'T READ also and he tries to blame that fault on others. Bad idea. Well NEWSFLASH: Its come back to circle him.
Posted by passwordstipulationssuck 3 years ago
I was looking for someone who genuinely believes in abortion. However, if no one accepts the debate for a few days that would be fine.
Posted by MasterofPun 3 years ago
I feel that it is necessary to first state (but not in my arguments), that I take a stance that I do not genuinely believe in. However, I do not intend to forfeit, but I do intend to provide reasons why abortion should be allowed under more circumstances than you say.

Is that acceptable to you, passwordstipulationssuck?
This debate has 6 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.