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

Does The End Justify The Means In Abortion?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,548 times Debate No: 113114
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (23)
Votes (1)




Personally, abortion is wrong in every scenario. The end does not justify the means in terms of abortion, even if it apparently helps the child or parental gaurdians. Abortion is killing babies, the most innocent of us all, and that's simply it. It doesn't matter whether the birthmother is a special snowflake, low IQued, or not very finacially supported. Abortion is manslaughter, and can not be accepted in American political culture. However, I would love to see what you guys think of this argument, because currently, I'm not sure I fully understand the other side of the issue. Here are some rules:

1. Stay Respectful
2. No Cussing
3. Rounds:
a. 1: Intro and acceptance to debate
b. 2-4: Debate topics discussed
c. 5: Winner is given


Hi nerd. I'd like to make only 2 points so we can discuss efficiently.

[1] A fetus is a template, its brain has not developed to a point where it has any critical or human traits. It's a blank slate, development and stimulation is what turns that fetus into a conscious being.

Why can't you remember what it's like being a fetus? The same reason you can't remember before your conception, because you did not exist.

[2] Making abortion illegal. Who suffers?

You're giving government control over a woman's body, feminists hate this, but it's deeper than that. That woman will have to dedicate her life to raising a child she may not be able to raise, now you're bringing a living being into this world with a mother that resents her baby and has an inability to raise it.

End result: Two shitty lives.

[2a] It's mainly religious types who want abortion to be illegal because of 'spiritual reasons' their main argument is claiming it's murder, but then you'll do well to refer to my first argument.
Debate Round No. 1


Very good point. But, answer me this: If a twenty-year-old falls into a coma, and he has lost his memory, and consciousness, but the doctor says he will come to with his memories in two months. In your idea of logic, the man might as well be dead, because he can't think.
See, you must think not only about the present moment but the future! If the fetus stayed that way, then I would agree with abortion, but it does not! In a few decades, that thing will be just like you! You were just like it! And, comparing you before you were a fetus, and you as a fetus is not a fair comparison, as one is actually a living thing, the other is simply the root of a living thing.
The suffering would still be there, I'll admit, but, it would be a lot less, and more spread out.
Yes, I am putting the government's control over a woman body, but, is that necessarily a bad thing? If the government has to take control parts of a woman's body to keep the ethics of Western Civilization together, that's okay with me. And okay, the woman may have to dedicate her life, but what about adoption? If they cared two-cents about their child, they would go through the adoption process. If the woman is too lazy or does not care about the child enough to put it through foster care or adoption, then that does not give her the right to kill her child. Finally, before you talk about how terrible a child is treated in foster or adoption care, it is at least giving them a future. A chance. Some of the greatest historical figures came from tough backgrounds.

However, riddle me this: If a newborn was laying in a hospital bed, and you shot it because you didn't want to take care of it, would it be legal/ethical?


The difference is, that mans conscious memories once existed, but the memories of the fetus never did. So by terminating the fetus no data is lost, but terminating the man means his memories become no longer accessible and a developed brain with emotional ties to family and friends is also lost.

That twenty year old might have lost his memory, but as a human he is not who he is based solely on his memory. He still has a developed brain which functions well in other areas such as an intact intelligence [A] This twenty-year-old would still have access to his sub-conscious and would retain basic motor skill and could learn new motor skills. Whereas a fetus has no development of their conscious nor subconscious. Clearly the 20 year old should be held with a higher priority.

[2] The exact reason as to why the mother wants to abort the child could vary, perhaps the child has a major birth defect and she doesn't want to promote cognitive and conscious growth in a body that would cause unhappiness for the inhabitant. I understand your argument to be based around not wanting to deny potential life to exist, my response to that is, should we make male masturbation illegal? As that's throwing away millions of potential lives down the toilet.

As for your newborn question, it's a grey area, I don't claim to know when a fertilized egg turns into a legitimate person, but I suspect it has a lot to do with brain activity. I don't advocate late abortions just to be safe. Therefore I wouldn't say shooting a newborn is ethical.

Debate Round No. 2


[1] While yes, you are correct that the man had memories, and he has data/memories that he already has, that he is somewhat different, but still, a fetus has future data, a projection of life, memories that will be going into the making! If a business has a projected plan for their company, does that mean they can shut it down because it MAY be inaccurate? No, that would be foolish in the business world! And the baby has recognizable features by the time when more abortions are performed! By then, their brain is almost ready, they are shaped like a human, they have organs! In truth, they are humans too!
[2] In the case of a defected child, it is one of the few times when I believe an abortion could be optional. However, that would be the only exception. And for male masturbation, personally, I think that is a bit too broad to be considered killing babies. There is a bit too much speculation going on there, but I'm sure that seems hypocritical coming from me. Anyways, U.S. government has passed an act, stating that porn/masturabatable material is a public health risk, so they are working on the issue. So, shouldn't they do the same thing with abortion, if you consider the actions ethically equal?


It's important to focus this debate on what a fetus is. At what point does that fetus become human? Probably at fertilization, but it doesn't become at person until it's able to rationalize at a very basic level. When a baby begins to recognize its mother "That is MY mother" This shows it understands a sense of self. This would be the beginning of the development of that person, the first thing it learns is its mother.
If the baby is too undeveloped to understand its mother, then it's compatible to a template and therefore not as important as a fully developed person. This means the fully developed mother has every right to terminate the template, despite the fact that this template has the ability to one day become a person.
Future data in the present tense means exactly the same as currently having no data. Not pursuing that data is not the same as losing data.

[2] So you're okay with sperm cells being terminated down the toilet, what about a fertilized egg? Is there a specific point int he development of life where you disagree with termination?
Debate Round No. 3


It's important to focus this debate on what a fetus is. At what point does that fetus become human? Probably-" Well, no probability there, it is a scientific fact. But don't take my word for it:
Myth 1: "Pro lifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So pro lifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions"

Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman's uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate." -Princeton Education University,

This source itself destroys your entire argument at the end of RND 3. That is why I am okay with sperm cells being terminated dow the toilet.

And are you saying that a baby doesn't truly be a human being until 3 days later, so it would be ethical to kill a newborn? But wait, I thought you yourself said that wasn't ethical... " I don't advocate late abortions just to be safe. Therefore I wouldn't say shooting a newborn is ethical." where is your stance? I'm unclear...

However, it was really fun to debate with you, and its nice to see it became logical and thorough. So, for round 4, close your argument to wrong me, and I will close my argument after a response to you, and in round 5 we will advocate to the reader why they should vote for them.


[1] What needs to be made clear is the different between a human and a person.
Being human is defined as having the characteristic of human kind. That's not the same as the definition for a person, being a person is recognition as an individual. This means that destroying a human is not the same as destroying a person.
The argument here is simple, a fetus is not a person, it's merely a human. This means it's destruction is not unethical as it has no unique individualism. A fetus can be destroyed at the expense of no person.

I'm not trying to make an argument for sperm cells being human, the point was to ask at what point is it not acceptable to abort in the pro-lifers opinion, are they for sperm cells being aborted, a fertilized egg and at what point does it stop being okay.

My stance is we should not be aborting too late, but abortion should be legal. I made a point agreeing that killing new born babies is not okay, despite the fact they have not developed person hood.
Debate Round No. 4


Alright, nice argument.
Now, I will not try to debate with you that a human and person are different, as that is somewhat true. However, I would argue with you that killing a human is just fine, but not a person. Personally, the word human is subjective. If I don't regard the African-Amerian living next to me as an individual, it is A-OK for me to kill him, in your logic. See, what you said right there is you justifying slavery. That was exactly the same argument that the slavers had on the slaves.

-It's my property ("You're giving government control over a woman's body,")
-They aren't people ("The argument here is simple, a fetus is not a person, it's merely a human. This means it's destruction is not unethical as it has no unique individualism")
-If you take them away, I and my land will suffer ("End result: Two shitty lives.")

And, before you tell me that by saying killing a human is ethical (which by the way, killing animals is usually unethical (in some senses), and, since a human is more related than an animal to a human, wouldn't it be more commonly/severely unethical?) you meant that everyone had to agree that "it" is not a human, and not one person thinking subjectively, "persons" always think subjectively. ALWAYS. Therefore, every single person who thinks someone around him is not adequate will be able to kill the other person in your world of logic. And there is proof right here: I personally regard to a fetus, or, as I call in real life, a baby (as inaccurate as that may be), as an individual. You don't. We clash.

The point when it is not acceptable to kill a fetus in real life is what I said earlier, with the Princeton EDU data. Being a human, not person, does not matter. By deriving those two things in society, you would be destroying society. And, with a ending note: May I put some other examples of when a person was called a human:

1) Untouchables (Hinduism)
2) Middle East Woman
3) Slavery
4) Americans Conquering Native Americans
5) Most war in general


[1] In short, I believe your argument is along the lines of-

'If we begin calling a fetus a non-person, then where will it end? We will have various races taking habit to calling one another non-human, this is what they did to justify slavery'

Correct me if I'm wrong in the comments section, but that's how I interpreted your argument, so I've summed it up in order to answer it easily.
Your argument would be a fallacy as it attempts to ignore whether a fetus being a non-person is true, instead it focuses on the outcome that may have. Despite this, I'll still respond to it.

If various races/groups do begin to use 'non-person' as a way to define groups they dislike, then that's not a fault of how we're classifying fetuses, rather, it's a fault of underlying racism within society.

[2] As for killing, I do believe it can be ethical. In cases of people wanting assisted suicide, those that are brain dead and those that wish to harm others. Those are all cases when killing persons is ethical, considering a fetus is not of person-hood we should be able to agree that the termination of a fetus is ethical, particularly when the mother is at a physical or an emotional threat.
Debate Round No. 5
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by NerdiestNerder 3 years ago
I understand that, @Masterful, but through your responses, you're giving him exactly what he wants.
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
I'm not bias, he votes against me because of the content of my debates
Posted by NerdiestNerder 3 years ago
Honestly, from my stance on the issue, you are both pretty petty in this situation. From an outsider looking in, it just looks like two 5 year olds fighting on a toy train. While I respect your differences, and that I have no place in this, it is wrong that you are both biased.
Posted by dsjpk5 3 years ago
The moderation team is being very fair to you considering how horrible you are at voting. In my opinion, your voting rights should be suspended because of your biased voting. As for me voting against you sometimes... it's not personal... you're just really bad at debating.
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
Sure but the voting isn't over. Besides i'm not talking about the debate.
I've got a long history with dsjpk where he votes against me regardless of how my debates panned out.
(He doesn't like me)
Posted by NerdiestNerder 3 years ago
This debate is over already Masterful.
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
This is not a victory for you dsjpk, this is a loss for DDO
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
Cmon now, I had an RFD you did not.

Can you at least acknowledge that the moderation team is being unfair here, they're removing votes with an RFD and keep those that don't. It's all going to pot.
Posted by dsjpk5 3 years ago
Except, as we have seen, my votes are not improper. On the other hand, one of YOUR votes has been recently removed because it was a disaster.
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
"The voter is not required to provide an RFD." Since when WhiteTroll? Aren't you preaching about RFD like it's coming outa your anus?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 

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