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

I'm Pro Life: Change my Mind

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/28/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 757 times Debate No: 118432
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




I believe abortion is murder and killing innocent babies. The baby has the right to life, As expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
NOTE: You do not have to change my mind to win the debate. Voters choose the winner on a 7 point system, And who they think made the best arguments, Regardless of whether my mind was changed or not.


I'll gladly take you on in this debate, Good sir.

I'll let you have the first say.
Debate Round No. 1


I just said what I believe. Your turn. Feel free to bring up new points as well.


Ah, Yes, I see.

Contention I: The Life of a Fetus

So this argument is going to inexplicably boil down to whether or not the fetus is considered "alive" or not. As many medical professionals have stated (and I concur with this train of thought), The baby is alive when it is capable of surviving outside of the womb unassisted. That usually is about 28 weeks into the pregnancy, Though it may occur even as early as 24 weeks, With proper care.

As such, I oppose that any abortion before the time of around 4 months should be legal, As the stage of development does not make sufficient human life. This developing child may be alive in a purely scientific sense only, But it in no way has reached the state of personhood that all of us have reached.

At this point, I'd just like to quickly shout out- by no means do I take this topic lightly at all. It is a very difficult one for me to argue, In fact. But there is a key difference between taking "human life" and taking "unidentified life".

Also, The "right to live" is a very broad term. Do convicted inmates on death row have "the right to live? " Do people who are sitting on deathbed and desperately wish to move on have "the right to live? " Does sperm have the "right to live? " Should masturbation be made illegal? Technically, That's millions to even billions of entities that have the right to live killed then and there.

As you can see, This is a very difficult topic. But my proposition for legalizing abortion also stems into the lives of other people, Including the woman.

Contention II: The Lives of Women

As I've stated above, Until the baby has the ability to survive outside of the womb, It can't be clarified as a "person" under the 14th amendment. Who does it belong to, Then? The woman who has sheltered it for how many months.

Why, Then, Should we disregard their input on the matter, Especially when it is an early abortion? Why should we force women to bring a child into this cruel, Cruel world when they may be incapable of raising a child? Many believe that adoption is the universal solution to abortion. People don't understand the trauma that can bring. Having a child is the single most dangerous many women will ever experience. Imagine making a mistake as a teenager, Having to give a child, And then adopt it off. That's looking to be ostracized, Socially rejected, And miserable. Not only is there social life ruined, Their whole education is set off-kilter.

And even the child will be leaped from home to home, Experience significant abandonment issues and statistically may never find a good home (especially if they're a minority child).

Of course, I would never say abortion is a good option for any pregnancy termination you want. But it's necessary at some times, And it should be allowed.

Thank you for reading this, And I eagerly await your response.
Debate Round No. 2


I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and being civil about it. Now on to your points. . .

The Life of a Fetus

I argue that the fetus is alive before it is introduced to this world. It has a heartbeat, A brain, And yes, Is scientifically alive. Even if you argue it has not reached our state of personhood, It has the potential to over time.

Criminals that are on death-row have been brought there by due justice. Cells that you mention are not "human", Then you could say all bacterial cells are human. How would you feel if someone decided to kill you before you were born? If the baby had a say, I'm sure he would want to live. I definitely would.

The Lives of Women

It is the women's fault they are bringing in a child by having sex. Why should we force babies to die?

Women should either raise the child, Accepting the consequences of their choices, Or give it for adoption, Because then the child can live. It may cause problems for the women, But that is the reality of their decision. Trauma can happen with aborting a child, As well.

I could not go very in depth because of school-work, So sorry, But I will try to go more in depth next round. Thank you for reading.


Thank you for your argument.

Once again, This potential to become a person is certainly a peculiar argument. Every sperm in the male body has the potential to grow into a human life, So why should we let them die? Both sperm and a fetus are incapable of surviving outside of the body; while the fetus is inarguably more complex and "human-like, " the're highl similar entities.

I'm not saying that the fetus holds zero moral significance- of course they do. But as I said before, While a fetus is alive, It is not a person, As opposed to the woman bearing the child, Who is a person. Weighing the moral significance of the fetus and the woman, The woman obviously takes precendence.

You brought up the phrase "If the baby had a say" in your argument, Wich I find interesting for two reasons. 1) again, Notice the word "if". These babies have no aspirations or even anything remotely reminiscent to thoughts of their own; we are enforcing our own thoughts onto the baby. Do the aspirations of others count more than the aspirations and morals of a woman holding the baby? If somebody commits 17 murders in the United States, For instance, And is sentenced to death, It's not as if France (a country without the death penalty) can simpl argue "no, You can't do that" because it interferes with their moral principles.

2) what makes you think the baby would want to live? Studies have shown up to 80% of children in foster care suffer from significant mental issues, As opposed to about 18% of people overall. Is that a life you'd be willing to live? Some might argue yes, But the fact that we're forcing women in already-precarious situations to force others into a precarious one is despicable to me.

Lastly, Saying its the women's fault for having sex as an argument for why abortions should be banned is about as far from the truth as you can get. There are plenty of circumstances that result in the need for an abortion. What about rape? What about incest? What about contraceptional failure? What about miscarriages in which not all products are expelled? What about an instance where a child has a disorder that would severely impact his life or that of the mother? What about people in low-income areas that lack easy access to contraception? What about teens who don't know better? There are many reasons why abortions would be required, And we ought to weigh this over the argument that "we must save as much life as possible. "
Debate Round No. 3


A unborn baby is a human being by the government. Does it hold no moral intrinsic value?

Vegetables can not survive on their own. Do we have the right to kill them? I do not think whether it can survive outside the womb or not should be the criteria to kill it or not.

The woman knows the consequences of her actions. Just because it is a "mistake, " does not mean she gets a pass. Same goes with anything. Just because you make a mistake does not mean you don' have any consequences that come with it.

Woman can not control miscarriages. Rape is a very small minority used for a big argument. There are plenty of people who can not conceive and want to adopt a child so badly.


I'm definitely not saying an unborn child holds zero moral value. But again, We are weighing the life of a bundle of cells versus the life of a woman. I still stand by my argument that protecting the life of the woman is more important than protecting the life of the unborn child.

By "vegetables", I believe you are referring to handicapped individuals, To which I respond that a wide range of them actually do survive physically on their own. They may require aid, Or even some scientific technology, But its entirely different from a fetus, Who has not developed its mind or body sufficiently to be referred to as a full "person. "

Again, As I stated above, There are certainly "oopsie" abortions (which I personally am not a fan of) but there are plenty of other reasons for why a woman would want an abortion. Contraceptives don't always work. Sometimes women undergo intercourse when they think they aren't going to get pregnant. And of course, The influence of drugs and alcohol (especially for teen partiers) also severely limit a woman's ability to make rational choices. Unless you're proposing we ban sex entirely, There are going to be these types of instances.

Yes, Women can't not control miscarriages, Which is why abortions may be required if the miscarriage is not fully expelled. The other arguments I listed are minorities, True (though rape statistics are heavily skewed- many women don't report rape out of humiliation or embarrasment) but they do happen. And I definitely don't think banning abortions will hurt the adoption process. There are plenty of children in need of adopted parents right now- the supply is currently far greater than the demand.

I'd like to see your response to the arguments on mental health in foster care children and people under the poverty line, As well as the high possibility of an increase in unsafe, Illegal abortions as a response to the banning of abortion entirely.

I look forward to your response, As usual.
Debate Round No. 4


By vegetables, I mean people that are in permanent comas. Fetus's start to develop different parts of the body on week one. I simply don't think whether it has "developed its mind" is a sufficient argument.

You mention they don't "think" they're gonna get pregnant or drugs and alcohol takes advantage of them. But again, Those are all there choices, And they know the risks and possible consequences when they do those things. In life, You don't get a second chance.

The fetus has a right to life, And even if it can't survive on its own, That shouldn't be the factor determining the value of it.

As of the foster stuff and last paragraph, Can you cite those statistics? That is somewhat like suicide. People think they aren't worth anything and their life is miserable, But they shouldn't take their lives because of it. Everyone's life is worth living and everyone is special and has a purpose in life.

I'm not sure how people would get illegal abortions, And it would be very cruel to kill even more fetus's in retaliation to new laws. This is also a prediction, And I'm not convinced that would actually happen.

Thank you for your civility and your time. I will now pass the torch to you. VOTE PRO!


Firstly, I'd like to present the evidence that you requested.
[1] https://www. Ncbi. Nlm. Nih. Gov/pmc/articles/PMC3061347/

This shows that children in foster care are very, Very commonly suffer from some sort of mental disorder. Of course, There are plenty of great foster parents out there! No doubt about it, And it's not always the fault of the foster parent. But it's best for a child to be raised with a happy, Full household.

I do believe "development of the mind" is a significant option, And in fact, Is it not what makes us human. Chimpanzees have limbs and heads much like ours, But they aren't human. They haven't experienced the same level of personhood as us. It doesn't make their life insignificant, But if one had to choose to kill a human or a chimp, Odds are the chimp would kick the can. This debate is a weighing of moral significance, And I believe that con holds the preponderance.

I'd like to review my points of today's debate-

[1] Forcing women to bear children (especially for those with extenuating circumstances) is cruel. We should focus on giving women good lives.
[2] Human fetuses, While still of significance and should be protected, Should not be weighed as a higher significance than the human mother.
[3] Foster care is not an option for everyone- many children who are raised in foster care experience problems. We should not give more people into the foster care system than necessary.
[4] The moral principles of others should not be forced onto the mother.

My opponent stated that that there are no second chances. Well, Judges, A vote for con is a vote for a second chance for the mother to live a full life, And perhaps bear children when she's ready, And not when she's forced to because of one grave mistake.

I thank my opponent for their time, Patience, And civility, And I humbly request of you, Judges, To cast a con ballot. Thank you!
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
Abortion is an admission of guilt of murder the homicide has or has not taken place yet. Roe Vs. Wade describes abortion as a loss of privacy but never described the cause of the loss. Privacy is forfeit when the admission of guilt is made publicly. Pro-life and Pro-choice do not address the issue of privacy they exploit the unconstitutional admission of guilt jeopardizing voters right by allowing a self-incrimination to be used in legislation of law.
Debating when live begins and using it as a justification opens the points of debate up to murder by negligence as a sperm and human egg are both living people. Congenital intercourse simple extends the period to which the living is to be expected. At no point is it certain as a united state that all eggs that have been fertilized will in fact survive to become a person.

A debate is over a woman"s independence on controlling her own natural process of menstruation. Which is aborted by intention or accidentally with the use of sexual intercourse. The argument here is that a woman may/should have a signed statement placed in writing before becoming sexual active with a male idevigaual, Saying in advance, She for personal medical reasons may need a Female Specific Amputation in event of a pregnancy.

This would have been more in line with the precedent set by marriage as this union relates to children as citizens of a nation to which the parents both live.
Posted by dustryder 3 years ago
Just wanted something more specific on your position. If it's no abortion from conception onwards and without any exception, Then that's fairly cut and dry. Many people however make certain allowances on when it is acceptable to terminate a pregnancy. Specific stages of development are especially in contention. For example in your case, You've mentioned babies. Babies fall outside of the pregnancy phase and it doesn't make sense to apply the term abortion to them. Perhaps you meant zygote?
Posted by Our_Boat_is_Right 3 years ago
Rape is a small minority of people, And is used as an overall argument to cover up the horribleness of abortion. Then it comes down to what life is more important, The mother's or the baby?
Posted by dustryder 3 years ago
To what extent are you against abortion? From conception, Regardless of other factors such as rape and conditions which threaten the mother?
Posted by Our_Boat_is_Right 3 years ago
You are killing a potential human. By science, Fetuses are lives. Therefore, They are dying when aborted.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
Or not being born is not the same as dying
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
a fetus is no more than a collection of atoms that are unaware
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by zhaod1 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Con stated that forcing women to bear children is cruel, but Pro refuted that, saying that life isn't going to give people second chances, and nearly all women had a choice whether or not to have sex. Con also stated that the life of a fetus has a less value than the mother, but seems to be missing the point that rarely women die from giving birth. Finally, Con stated that children in foster homes don't have happy lives, but Pro refuted that, saying that it isn't justification for killing the fetus. However, Pro had no sources, while Con had.

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