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

Is Abortion Moral?

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: 5/6/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 938 times Debate No: 90783
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)




Abortion is murder. It kills babies in the womb. End of story.


First off the embryo is a mass a cells it is not yet a baby it does not have rights until a mother gives birth to it therefore it is not murder. secondly what if it is a young girl or woman that was raped and does not want to have the baby? That is not murder. That is not immoral. If someone is going to have a baby they can not care for, abortion is saving their life from being ruined as well as the baby. This is all I can really say since you put the character limit at 500.
Debate Round No. 1


First off, YOU are a mass of cells. Killing babies isn't the solution for people making bad sexual decisions. That decision is not alleviated by killing the "problem." One does not get to kill things just because it's in your uterus and it's more convenient. Rape is evil. Killing babies is also evil. Unless the mother's life is in danger or to point where she's suicidal, killing the baby is murder. Defining whether something is human or not based your convenience is disgusting.


I do not have sympathy for those that did not where a condom they would be most likely unprepared for a baby most likely if they were teens. here's the thing they would literally ruin their life and the baby's life because most mothers are not willing to put there baby's up for adoption and should not be forced to if they are unprepared. like I said I have no sympathy for them as they made a idiotic choice. I have so much more to say. In the future please make the character count bigger.
Debate Round No. 2


No matter how bad a life may be ruined (which is not even definite), it does not compare to killing a life, which is permanent and definite.
You are contradicting yourself repeatedly in your argument. Before you said that it is not even yet a baby until it leaves the womb and now you completely changed your argument and saying that it is a baby, but it will ruin the baby and mother's life. I apologize for the low character count, it was an accident.


mcnugget forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent has forfeited round 3, probably scared away from confronting the facts.
Because this is the last round, I'll say the following: The baby is not the woman's body, anyone with any scientific knowledge knows this, therefore the concept of bodily autonomy doesn't apply. We don't care about the uterus, we care about the living child within it.


mcnugget forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by hutch976 2 years ago

"A brief look at feminist arguments (which, unfortunately, far too many men also accept) to justify which of their tiny children live or die does little to highlight women"s intellectual dexterity. Instead, we encounter head-scratching realities that will"hopefully"cause people decades from now, when common sense has returned to this issue, to wonder what (or if) we were thinking. Feminist arguments, ironically, lend credence to much of the misogynist argument about the overly-emotional irrationality of the weaker sex.

Take, for example, last week"s brutal attack on Michelle Wilkins, the young mother in Longmont, Colorado, who was lured to a home through a CraigsList advertisement for children"s clothing. Upon arrival, she was assaulted with a knife and her seven-month child was cut out of her womb. The mother survived, the then-viable baby did not. The State of Colorado, not sure how do deal with this deceased "product of conception," opted against murder charges because to do so would be to make a real connection between a "product of conception" and a baby. Such a connection must be avoided, feminists recognize, because it would undermine much of their justification for abortion, the holy grail of their financial and political movement. "
Posted by raquelhs 2 years ago

the idea that contraceptives are not available in the United States is absurd. You can get cheap or free condoms anywhere.
Abortions are majorly due to unwanted pregnancies as a result of making poor decisions and having sex out of wedlock. Killing the baby is not the solution.
There are 1-2 million couples waiting to adopt in the US. Do you really believe that killing the child is a better solution because they might feel bad that their parents didn't want them?
Posted by hutch976 2 years ago

Children can certainly be viewed as punishments, and burdens, as can the elderly, the infirm, and those who are in poverty. BUT SHOULD THEY BE VIEWED THAT WAY? Or should we dedicate ourselves to helping our fellow human beings.

You said "if someone cannot survive on their OWN at all (or have never been alive), are they alive?"

Hmm...well I'll ask someone who needed a blood transfusion or surgery to live. I'll ask someone who takes medication to live, for without it on their own, they would DIE.

I'm sure your argument extends to new born children, who without the care of the mother and father and doctors would surely die?

Where do you draw the line on when life begins? That's what this comes down to, WHERE DOES LIFE BEGIN EXACTLY? Pro-life says at conception, and Pro-choice cannot make up it's mind.

So if you are not sure, why would you EVEN TAKE THE RISK of ending the life of another human who has done no wrong?
Posted by echelius 2 years ago
I live in Hawaii, and in Hawaii Planned Parenthood stops giving abortions after 18 weeks. A baby can survive outside of the womb as early as 22 weeks, but not before. If someone cannot survive on their own AT ALL (or have never been alive), are they alive?

Abortions rarely occur after 18 weeks, and the Wikipedia article 'hutch976' cited featured a woman born at 30 weeks with cerebral palsy after a failed abortion. This abortion took place in 1977, (a long time ago as far as abortion technology is concerned), and took place at 30 weeks, a time at which it is virtually impossible to get a legal abortion in the US. Additionally, the cerebral palsy was not a cause of the abortion but rather a cause of bering born at least six weeks early.

'hutch976' also says children are not punishments, and this can be completely wrong. A mother usually wishes to get an abortion because they don't want the child, and a large reason that potential mothers don't want their children is due to their inability to care for the child after it's birth. An unwanted birth puts the mother in a very bad situation. They now have to care for their needy child while continuing to hold a job, pay their bills, etc.
Also, the child will have a hard life. They will be raised in an unhealthy environment (because they were not wanted) and grow up poor and without opportunity (I am just generalizing here. I assume that rich people don't get as nearly many abortions as poor people because they would have more access to birth control and other contraceptives).
I commonly hear the defense "Well just put them up for adoption". Adopted children can have a good life, but do you really want to succumb the child to the belief that their parents didn't want them so they gave them away?
Abortion is a much better alternative to raising a child in a poor atmosphere.
Posted by hutch976 2 years ago

That's QUITE a claim, and I am wondering on what you base that on. Considering that babies as early as 22 weeks into a pregnancy can survive outside the womb. So let me ask for clarification, are you saying that these babies are not CITIZENS with protected rights by the laws of our nation until they are physically out of the womb, or that they are not PEOPLE? If you are basing your argument on the former, well you are of course perhaps legally right, but to base your moral arguments on secular man made laws is a dangerous one for the same laws in the same nation once said certain grown men and women were only 3/5 of a person.

Furthermore, there is evidence that babies breath, dream, even masturbate in the womb of their mothers. Sounds like they have a mind and thoughts of their own. And if consciousness is your argument, where do you draw the line on what consciousness is? How do you even define it, and how are sure babies DON'T have it? Do you understand the difficulty in objectively proving a negative statement? Do you have all of the evidence out there to inform your opinion on what is and is not a human worth living?

Let's take a look at a real life example of a baby that was aborted:

30 weeks into a pregnancy the mother had a legal abortion that FAILED to KILL Gianna, who is now a productive member of society. What were GIANNA's rights? She obviously had the ability to function and live outside the womb at that stage. Now you might say, well so what? She needed medical help. All newborn children would die without HELP FROM OTHERS for YEARS after they exit the womb! What part of the birthing process are they granted exclusive human rights again?

To answer your question: Rape is a horrible crime, but the answer is not to perpetuate more violence against an innocent. Children are NOT a punishment.
Posted by raquelhs 2 years ago

So you're okay with partial-birth abortion?
You clearly have zero scientific knowledge if you believe that the BABY is some random tissue.
Also, the baby is also not part of the woman's body, it is an independent life-form.

I know you were referring to @hutch976 but I'm just going to tell you my view of women who were impregnated as a result of rape.
First of all, the left lovvess to use that argument even though less than 5% of abortions are because of rape.
Second of all, all rapists are evil and should either be killed or jailed for life.
Thirdly, killing babies is also evil. Period.
The only time abortion is necessary is if the mother's life is in danger.
Posted by Phenenas 2 years ago
@hutch976 An embryo gains the rights of a human life when the mother gives birth to it. Before birth, a fetus is a blob of cells with no identity at all. Simply a part of the woman. Most pregnant women project love and protection onto the growing embryo because it has the potential to become their child, but that doesn't mean it's a fully conscious human being. But if a woman doesn't want to give birth, she has every right to terminate whatever part of her body she doesn't want.

I respect and understand the pro-life viewpoint, but I personally value the comfort and freedom of a grown woman over morality laws that give legal rights to blind, unfeeling zygotes. But what's your view of women who were impregnated as a result of rape? Should they be allowed to have abortions, or not?
Posted by mall 2 years ago
Vote for the Con side.
Posted by hutch976 2 years ago

Not sure if your comment was in response to mine or the publisher of this debate but nonetheless I am responding to your comment.

So let me ask you this...when does an "unthinking embryo" stop being that and become human life? How are you sure of this? If that is not human life in there, then what is it? Is it going to be something else? And who is anyone to decide who deserves to live and who deserves not to?

What person says, "Oh honey, the fetus is kicking!"? Why don't you go ahead and walk up to a pregnant woman and ask her how her mindless sack of embryo is doing? I'll tell you why you don't, because it's an insane and irrational thing to do.

Furthermore, if you want to get into who is a "murderer" and who is not that is quite an intense philosophical and theological conversation. But yes, if believe that ending another human life without the permission of that human to be "murder", then yes...that person would be a murderer.

I suggest you read and meditate, however, on Pope Francis' huge message of Mercy and Grace, and know that no one should be condemning the poor women faced with such trouble choices, but rather helping them overcome the circumstances that put her in the unnatural posture where she apparently believes she has to decide whether the life inside her is "human" or not and if it "Deserves" to live.

See Catholic Social teaching on the RADICAL idea of caring for those less fortunate so that hard decisions and circumstances no longer further perpetuate violence against the innocent, not the least of which includes children not yet out of the womb.
Posted by Phenenas 2 years ago
Apparently a mindless, unthinking embryo is now classified as a "baby", and a woman who wishes to get rid of her pregnancy is a "murderer".
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by hutch976 2 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 Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD found in comments