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


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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/28/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 471 times Debate No: 120066
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)




Pro: Pro-choice
Con: Pro-life

I would consider my views regarding abortion more on the pro life side, And here is why. For one, Abortion is murder, Murder is wrong. Secondly, No woman has the right to terminate another life, This is not an issue of body autonomy or woman"s rights, It"s about whether women have the right to end another life because it"s more convenient for her to do so. Lastly, I do not believe that abortions should be illegal all together, There should be exceptions, Just like every other law that operates in today"s society. The only cases where abortion should be an option for women is when: 1-it is the product of rape/incest. 2- it is apparent that having the child poses a deadly threat to the mother, I. E, It is predictable that the mother will be seriously harmed/killed in the process of giving birth to the baby. Women should not have the right to end the life of another because it is more convienient for her to end its life.


You're Pro Life.

1) Are you vegetarian or vegan?

2) Do you think that it is righteous to extinguish life in defence of your country?

3) The product of both rape and incest is likely to be a perfectly viable foetus. Your Pro Life morality is somewhat selective in this regard.

Pro Lifers tend to be selective and hypocritical and point 3 would already suggest that you are no different.

Can you change my mind?
Debate Round No. 1


I hope to change your mind on this topic, Although people seem to be deeply rooted with their beliefs, I hope my arguments make sense so that you may change your mind on this issue.
To answer your questions, Yes I am vegetarian because I do find value in life, Whether it is human life or animal life. Do I think it"s right to kill others while defending our country? Yes and no, I think there are solutions other than war but when it comes to the safety of the people of this country there is a legitimate reason to take the life of others, Because in the end it is protecting ours. And yes, In the case of rape and incest it may seem odd how it should be okay to kill the fetus in this situation if abortion is so morally wrong, But because a woman would be forced into this situation and she didn"t knowingly get herself into this situation, Then I don"t think the government at least should have the right to tell her what to do in these situations. Do I think it is morally right to still abort a fetus even in these cases? No. But do I think it would be extereme if our government told women who were raped or involved in cases of incest to carry the baby to term? Yes.
Sometimes there isn"t a good answer to every question, And in any case it is tragic if a fetus is aborted, But would it infringe upon the rights of the women if in every case we told her as a society that she has to carry to term? Probably so. I don"t see this is a flaw in judgement, I see this as finding a way to respect the rights of women and the rights of the unborn. Just because there are exceptions to rules it doesn"t mean that it makes the basis of that argument invalid. For example, The death penalty and the right of police officers to use lethal force when necessary is a great example. We as a society have established that murder is bad an not morally right. I can"t just walk to my local store and just start shooting people. But, We as a society have agreed that in some cases that extreme criminals should face the death penalty because of their crimes. Similar to this example, Police officers carry weapons and are allowed to use lethal force if they feel necessary, I. E. They fell as if there life is threatened and they do not have a choice. Just because there are instances where it is deemed okay to murder another person doesn"t mean our overarching idea of murder being bad is flawed. Just because we are allowed to kill in these circumstances doesn"t mean it should be okay for everyone/anyone to do so, I think we can agree on that, Hopefully.
In deeper response to your vegan/vegetarian question, As I said before I am vegetarian because I do not believe in killing other life"s for my own personal gain. If I am able to live and be healthy without killing an animal in the process, I don"t see how that is a bad thing. I don"t think we can compare animal lives however to human lives for the sake of argument, But yes I do value all life.
The reason my views may come off as selective and hypocritical is because I say that in some cases the female should at least have the option to abort a fetus, But only because there needs to be a "middle ground" where women"s rights aren"t being infringed upon, But at the same time they are being held accountable for their actions.
On this note, I think other things in our current system need to change to support this as well, Such as free birth care. I challenge anyone of the pro-choice stance to really evaluate why they have the beliefs on this topic that they do, To actually look at this philosophically and judge then if people should have the right to end another life if it"s just "too inconvient" for them to have a child. There isn"t going to be a perfect answer to this issue, But I truly believe that this is good answer for both sides.


Abortion is acceptable when Con deems it to be acceptable and abortion is unacceptable when Con deems it so.

The taking of life is acceptable when Con deems it to be acceptable and the taking of life is unacceptable when Con deems it so.

This is clearly double standards, Selective morality and quite clearly "Pro Choice" rather than absolute "Pro Life".

Pro choice as dictated by collective social decision making and legislation. Which in most civilised societies is already the status quo.

As such, Con and I seem to be in general agreement.

So how do we take this debate forwards?
Debate Round No. 2


I believe that this is the issue on this topic and why many people can"t move forward with this. I think everyone has skewed ideas of what other people on the other side want. Sure, I have met other pro-life people who are very extreme with their beliefs, But most of them have similar views to mine. My point in this debate is to find middle ground between the two sides, Not to get people fully on board with 100% pro life beliefs.
To comment on "selective morality", I don"t find that my view says life is more valuable in one case over another, In all cases it is valuble, But in the extreme cases where the women doesn"t have a say in it, Even though it is taking a life, She should at least have the option.
To summarize, It seems that when people have opinions on this topic they are either way far left or way far right on their opinions regarding this issue, But there needs to be some negotiation and some willingness to agree with the other side. I hope that I maybe have changed your own opinions on this matter, So maybe you aren"t 100% pro choice but now you are 50/50, Somewhere in the middle.


We've come at things from different angles but just about ended up in the same place.
And my morals are no doubt just as selective as Cons and also Just as selective as everyone else's, For that matter. I would suggest that this is why current social legislation is as it is.

Murder by definition is unlawful killing and as such, Abortion cannot be regarded as murder if social legislation dictates otherwise. Ultimately and realistically the power to legislate lies within human society and not with any greater universal authority.

If British society should deem to legislate in favour of a total ban on abortion, Then I would be just as happy to support that decision as I am now in supporting current laws. In this respect I presently remain100% pro choice. Nonetheless it would also be fair to suggest that I remain 50/50 in my conceptually subjective approach to the morality of abortion.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
It"s ironic that abortion laws are motivated by a desire to limit abortions, Yet one of the best ways to reduce abortion is to liberalize or repeal anti-abortion laws. That"s not the only factor of course. The real key is to promote women"s rights, With particular attention to their reproductive rights. Also, Most abortions occur because women can"t afford to have a child, So governments can significantly reduce abortion numbers by building a more stable, Prosperous society and making child-rearing economically feasible. There is no need for societies to defend fetal interests directly, As the best way to protect fetuses is to provide resources directly to pregnant women. When a pregnant woman is safe and healthy, So is her fetus.
Posted by John_C_1812_II 3 years ago
Pregnancy abortion is an admission or confession to a guilt described to be from officially ending life. Which is by basic principle murder. Constitutional application describes the admission made as an incomplete truth told by some woman as a united State. When woman are held as all equal they all committing murder by not having sexual relationships as soon as ovulation starts.

This is in whole truth the time a woman is having a legal pregnancy abortion as she is still committing murder. When addressing men who have already supposedly placed themselves in a truth of all being created equal. A male commits murder not only when not having sexual relationships. He does the same even while involved in a state of natural reproduction.

Law of nature produces a higher count of living sperm to the female count of living egg. Thus there is actual never a time a male does not sacrifice life to create a life. This is where the common defense to the general welfare is lost between woman and men.
Posted by John_C_1812_II 3 years ago
**It has been proven that making abortion illegal does not reduce abortion. **

No it has not been proven. All that has been proven is that after 100 years a woman left to their own constitution would not create a state which holds all woman equal. As the ability to hold all woman as equal is visibly lacks A demonstration of how all woman and men can be held equal as a untied state with officially ending life.

It is both woman and men who share the united states of killing a child by refusing to have sexual relationships when simply asked to do so by a member of the opposite gender/sex.

I might say a legal form of pregnancy abortion is In Vitro Fertilization however science does not describe this to witnesses as pregnancy abortion at all. A legal official stop of pregnancy, Not life but pregnancy itself, As science itself is also performing a form of fertilization termination without constitutional common defense to the general welfare of all woman, So science requires a legal defense to achieve this.
Posted by Sierra0417 3 years ago
Is your point then that we can"t make laws on issues if people are going to break them anyway? I don"t disagree that there needs to be more education on other options, But we can"t just allow people to take other lives just because some are going to find a way around it.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
If your point was to reduce abortion with law enforcement, It's a moot point.
It has been proven that making abortion illegal does not reduce abortion.
The only proven way to reduce abortion is through a comprehensive education and strong support systems.
Posted by Sierra0417 3 years ago
In a nutshell, Yes. I think unless it is necessary abortion should not be legal. In my opinion, Abortion is still murder in any case, But as far as how the laws should be made around this topic, I think there needs to be some cases where the mother should have the option to abort because she did not consent to having sex and therefore can"t be held responsible for a child. Not saying I agree with abortion in any sense, But I think if the law was that all abortion is illegal then there would be a big issue of prohibiting women"s rights.

This issue around abortion isn"t bodily autonomy because it"s not just the mother"s body"s involved in the decision, It is the life of the fetus as well. And the reason women who are raped should have the option is because they did not consent to the act that gives rise to a child and therefore can"t be held responsible for it. Again, As far as my beliefs go I think abortion is wrong in all cases, It is still taking away a life which we as people don"t really have the right to do, But as far as making laws surrounding abortion, Unconsenting women should have that as an option. If you are going to partake in the act that creates life, You have to deal with the consequences of your actions. If you choose not to use birth control or contraceptive methods then that is your choice and you can"t kill another human being because of a choice you decided to make. That is why if a women is raped or in the case of incest she should have the option because she did not go into this act willingly. As far as not aborting babies with genetic defects, We don"t play an all mighy role in who deserves to live and who doesn"t. We are all flawed in some way or another, There is no "perfect human" so does that mean you, Me and everyone else should have been aborted?
Posted by segregory 3 years ago
I do not think that abortion is ok at all. If the baby that is being born is not wanted for whatever reason, Then there are other ways then just saying, "Goodbye! Don't know how you would live, Who you would become, But I don't want to have a baby so I am going to kill you. Sorry! " That is horrible. It does not matter what that mother, And/or father are going threw, That does not give them a right to murder a 100% innocent baby. I would join the argument if the con was open, But I very much look forward to watching this debate if it continues.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
1. It is a bodily autonomy violation. This problem doesn't disappear just because you say it does.

2. If it isn't a bodily autonomy issue then there's no reason to allow abortion for rapes.

3. If you allow abortion for incest babies, Why not other babies that have genetic defects or other mental conditions?
Posted by PlayfairAxiom 3 years ago
So you're essentially arguing against abortion whenever it's not considered necessary?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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