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

Is Abortion Morally Acceptable?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/8/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 829 times Debate No: 98797
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




No, Abortion is not morally acceptable. the horrific genocide caused by this "It's just a Fetus" wave is sickening. About 125,000 babies are slaughtered in one day, coming to the heinous count of 40-50 MILLION babies massacred every year. What makes this worse is the acceptance from the Left as a whole; this is a GENOCIDE! regardless of the vomit-inducing death tolls, this also tells young adults that their choices have no consequences they have to face at a possible life-altering decisions. All in all, I weep for our human race as a whole.


"Not until twenty-eight weeks, at 77 percent of full-term development, does the fetus acquire sufficient neocortical complexity to exhibit some of the cognitive capacities typically found in newborns. Fetus EEG recordings with the characteristics of an adult EEG appear at approximately thirty weeks, or 83 percent of full-term development. In other words, the capacity for human thought does not exist until just weeks before birth. Of all the characteristics used to define what it means to be human, the capacity to think is provisionally agreed upon by most scientists to be the most important. By this criterion, since virtually no abortions are performed after the second trimester, and before then there is no scientific evidence that the fetus is a thinking human individual, it is reasonable for us to provisionally agree that abortion is not murder and to offer our provisional assent that abortions within the first two trimesters are not immoral because the evidence confirms that during this time the fetus is not a fully functioning human being. Therefore, although one may oppose abortion on a personal level, there is no scientific justification to shift the abortion issue from a personal and moral one to a social and political one." [1]

Our ability to think is what sets humans apart from other animals. The capacity to think defines what it means to be human. Just as it's not "murder" to pull the plug on a brain-dead person, it's not "murder" to abort a baby before the second trimester; their minds don't work yet.

[1] Michael Shermer, "The Science of Good and Evil"
Debate Round No. 1


I agree with your argument to a point. Yes, in this case it's more of a personal level when concerning whether or not it counts as murder. However, being able to have cognitive thought does not define the right to live. Yes, they aren't thinking as a human would, but does that mean the value of it's life is less than that of a born human? Going off of that standard, since you and I(I believe) are not at the intellect of Albert Einstein, then you and I have less of a right to live. NO! In no way is that true! the Declaration of Independence outlined that ALL humans have natural born rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Deer hunting is outlawed during all seasons except for a few weeks of fall. this is because the mothers need to be able to give birth and care for the young. It's seen as a horrific thing when a female deer id poached while carrying babies(beings of lesser intellect). so why in contrast is it seen as acceptable to do so with humans?

p.s. i forgot to add a link to my previous argument in round one. for my numbers, visit


The question is, what makes you a human being? Is it having a heartbeat? Lungs? Ears? Eyes? No. None of these things are unique to humans. My cat has a heartbeat, lungs, ears, and eyes.

What my cat doesn't have is the capacity to think human thoughts. The human brain is unique.

Like my cat, the fetus does not have a functioning human brain. Therefore it's not a human being.

Notice that I'm not saying that having a better functioning human brain makes you more human or that having a poorly functioning human brain makes you less human. If you have a functioning human brain, you're a human being. I am not making the case that people with inferior intelligence have less of a right to live. Your Albert Einstein analogy is a strawman.

Debate Round No. 2


WHAT IF IT IS INSIDE A HUMAN MOTHER!? DOES THAT NOT MEAN IT'S A HUMAN BEING? You believe that having a functioning human brain makes a human? Your argument would hold water, except that NO mammal fetus has a completely functioning human brain. Cat, human, bear, dog; it doesn't matter! that like saying it's not a cat because there is not a completely developed cat brain. It's an unfair and useless standard that can never be fulfilled. It's a double-edged sword. On one hand, if it doesn't have a functioning brain it's not human (regardless of the mother's species). On the other, in no way would it be evolutionarily beneficial to have a functioning brain in the first trimester, OTHER THAN THAT OF THE THREAT THAT YOU SUPPORT: ABORTION! It's unfair, stupid, and just plain evil to say that a defenseless fetus's brain isn't functioning yet, so it's ok to abort it. While I know you aren't instigating abortion or anything, defending the morality of such a subject with the claim that it's not human until a certain point is INSANE, especially when you even stated that there is limited research when it comes to a fetus's brain activity during the first trimester. Also, when you have changed your opinion slightly during this debate. You had previously stated," ... abortions within the first two trimesters are not immoral because the evidence confirms that during this time the fetus is not a fully functioning human being." Of course they aren't, but CAN THEY HELP IT!? While the mother has an inherent "right" to choose, WHY IS THE FATE OF THIS CHILD'S LIFE HANG ON SOMEONE ELSE'S SHOULDERS!? In conclusion, though these babies aren't even completely developed yet because of the lack of an evolutionary benefit, it's still ok to abort these babies. (not)

Regardless of how this turns out, you debated very well. if it were in person I would shake your hand. Your name is also pretty cool. Good job.


No, a fetus should not be considered a human being just because it's "inside a human mother." Tumors can grow inside a human mother, too.

You continue to assume that the fetus is a human being, referring to it as a "child" and a "baby." You need to qualify this assumption.

I argue that the fetus is not a "child" until it reaches 30 weeks old, which is when it develops the capacity for human thought. The capacity for human thought is what makes something a human. This is not unfair, stupid, or evil.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: John_C_1812// Mod action: NOT Removed<

0 points awarded. Reasons for voting decision: I am voting Pro but under protest as abortion is not moral. the facts are simple not all presented clearly.

[*Reason for non-removal*] As the voter awarded no points, all he is required to do is provide some feedback. He does, even if it"s vague, so the vote is sufficient.
Posted by cwt002 1 year ago
Why not look at science or at least to doctors to determine if the baby inside the womb is a human being?
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
Abortion is not morally acceptable by any-one. Self-defense is simply the public message sent and used when the confession of murder is hidden in the term abortion. Under many other conditions were a confession of this nature is used, given, without the complete understanding or proper representation of choice. The understanding is that the confession is immoral.

A medical professional is confessing to be an active participant in a possible premeditated murder. They are in no way in any danger and lose all justification of self-defense. They are indeed only an agent of the patient who is making the confession. A doctor however is also a State licensed Official who has taken another unto which the confession under all conditions violate openly in the public. There are circumstances that a doctor has to make that sometimes are hard if not almost impossible to make. The single fact there has been no basic separation in legislation between these points expressed by abortion is at the least immoral.

The medical profession is either being exploited or taken advantage of or is in fact is a willing accomplice. As there has never been a Presidential State of the Union between Basic Principle and Legal Precedent made on behalf the United States Constitution. The lack of any state of separation that violates the union is clearly exposed when abortion is met with a public choice such as Gender Specific Amputation via United States Constitution.

There is at some time two points that are met. The points address a straight line in a course of human event, life and death. There has never been one justification why a woman, why anyone would be allowed to orchestrate a confession to murder as the reasonable solution to perform a medical necessity deemed by emergency.

A person might never provide a constant and accurate decision based on a confession alone. Unless other details are provided on the personal circumstance, the known facts.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
Yes it is....Moral has nothing to do with it..
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by John_C_1812 1 year 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I am voting Pro but under protest as abortion is not moral. the facts are simple not all presented clearly.