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

Is Abortion Right?

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: 9/5/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 711 times Debate No: 95205
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




I personally think that abortion should be made illegal in all countries. First of all, cutting the life of a person who has not even been born is a horrible act of murder. Testing done in America can show if the baby in the mother's womb has the possibility of developing a disorder- whether physical, or mental, and if the baby does, the mother has the option of going through an abortion. This itself is wrong. Mothers are supposed to accept and love their children whoever and however they are. Second of all, the act of killing can get you detained in most countries I am aware of. However, the killing of an unborn child seems to be neglected. Why? Because the child is 'not human yet'? I'd like to see some proof of this claim. Children do not just magically become human, and to think so is just as wrong as our anscetors claiming that newly-born babies are not entirely human and therefore okay to kill. To take a life is sometimes understandable, if you are in the need to defend yourself from someone, you are in war, or you are carrying out an execution. To take the life of a child who has done absolutely no wrong, however, is beyond horrible. Mothers should not pick through babies until they have found the one that pleases them the most. Babies are not toys that can be returned once bought.

Note that I'm not hating on anyone who has done an abortion. I agree with abortion under the circumstances that the mother's life might be in danger, or the child itself has such a small opportunity to live and would be in pain if they were born due to their condition- if they would survive this anyway. I just see mothers pulling unccessary plugs on their baby's life just because they could be born with a small genetic condition or they simply did not see the pregnancy coming.

"But what if they're a rape victim?", you ask? I understand. People who would become rape victims would sometimes go through the darkest times of their life and develop depression, which could worsen if they found out they were even pregnant. Some would immediately perform an abortion to the child, because to some they are a reminder of what the mother went through.
I know that that rape is a horrible experience that some are unfortunate to have to go through, but the child that could be born from this incident had nothing to do with it. The child is innocent. It just so happened they were the product of what happened, and you can't blame them. I'm not saying to blame the victim, either. I would just advise people to go through with the pregnancy and give birth to the child, and if you don't want them, put them up for adoption where they could maybe even be given a better life. Some rape victims I've seen raise their children proudly, loving them profusely.

Some people don't expect becoming pregnant, especially teenagers. They're often hit with the reality of their actions and some would fear being shunned by their family and peers, be looked down on by the religions they may practice, and because of this it could lead the mother to perform an abortion on the child. If this happens, I know some parents might be furious with their children. It's understandable, but some parents even push their child to abandon the baby, even if the mother herself doesn't want to. This is wrong. Again, the child had nothing to do with this. It is by absolute chance that they are now in their mother's womb. To wipe them of their life is a horrendous act of cruelty.

I'd love to see a counter arguement for this. Keep in mind this is the first debate I've ever published, or the first one I've ever even done. I'm exteremely new to everything, so if I don't explain my facts or side properly, please give me some time. I didn't mean to offend anyone with my statements either, I want a friendly arguement with no hard feelings.



Hi there! Thanks for instigating this debate, as it is my favorite topic to debate on. I'm sure we will both have fun and learn something even in the process. Now then, onto the debate.

You say that mothers are supposed to accept and love their children. Do you have any evidence for that, or are you just going to assume that it's true? Also, how can they love and accept their child if there is not child (because they get an abortion)
Next you say that the act of killing can get you detained in most countries, but we all (hopefully) know how untrue this statement is. Of course we can kill in other countries! Most countries permit self defense, and some countries have the death penalty! Euthanasia/death with dignity should be right in all countries! I think what my opponent is trying to say is that we can get detained for killing INNOCENT people. I guess that's actually pretty intuitive, but is precisely what i will argue that is wrong. I say that it is actually OK to murder innocent people. Now before you go crazy at me let me have a chance to explain myself, later in this debate (next round).

Of course the unborn child/fetus is a human, after all, is has homo-sapiens DNA. But the question actually is whether a fetus is a person. Do not get human and person mixed up, different, different things. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt an agree that the fetus is actually a person (this is not my actual view , but lets just say for the sake of argument that you are correct, and the fetus is a person).

Back to the topic of killing, and self defense, what about abortion in self defense? What if the mother will die if she doesn't have an abortion? I think that a mother should be able to have an abortion in self defense, after all, the kid is threatening the mother's life, whether the fetus wanted to, or not. If you disagree with this, ill try to prove that a self defense abortion is justified. If, a person poses a threat to your life, then by law, we are able to relieve that threat. Likewise with abortion.
(EDIT): just realized that you permit self defense abortion. lol.

Hey, a tip for future debate, try laying out your arguments with premises. I have previously debates with a nice fellow who layed out his abortion premises...

P1. If the human fetus possess "personhood", then it has inalienable natural rights
P2. If an entity has unalienable natural rights, then it has the right to life
P3. the violation of another person's right to life is only moral if it that person is threatening to violate someone else's right to life
P4. A fetus in a healthy pregnancy does not pose a threat to the mother's right to life
P5. A fetus has personhood.

Conclusion: it is immoral for a mother to terminate a healthy pregnancy

This was my opponents premises, and use step to step logic to come to a logical conclusion. You use uncontroversial statements to come to a controversial conclusion, and if all your premises are correct, Hey presto! You win! Of course, i dont have lay out my premises because the burden of proof rests on you since your are the one trying to restrict our autonomy (BTW in not saying restricting autonomy is a bad thing).

Please list your premises next round. It creates a much more structured debate, as i attempt to refute your premises, and you defend them. Thanks.

It seems to be that only under really extreme circumstances, will you permit abortion (like the self defense abortion).
From what you've said, i will attempt to create your premises and conclusions. And you can update and change them to your liking next round.

P1. The fetus is a person
P2. All people have the right to life
P3. We can only violate the right to life if someone's life is being threatened
P4. Healthy fetuses don't pose a threat to someone's life.
P5. Aborting a fetus violates it's right to life

Conclusion. It is impermissible to abort healthy fetuses.

I will post my reasoning for why I think it is OK to kill innocent people next round.

My reasoning why a fetus is not a person is because only people can make autonomous decisions, and have sentience. Fetuses cannot make autonomous decisions, and do not have sentience. Only people can. Sure you may rebut that disadvantaged people are similar to fetuses in that they may not be able to make autonomous decisions, like if you have a mental disorder. But even seriously mentally disabled people have sentience. Even a person who cannot hear, feel, touch, or see things has sentience, because they have the ability to perceive things (with their other senses). Basically what I am saying is that if you find a "person" who has not senses, and cannot make autonomous decisions, they are not actually a person. (BTW, I autonomous decisions mean that you can be morally praised and blamed). Being able to be blamed or praised for moral actions is a trait unique to people, and people of all kinds.

This concludes round one.

Thanks again for instigating. Its people like you that makes this community so diverse and interesting. Always good to have an open mind. Good luck next round. And as a side note, I'm actually really new to this community to, only been on here for 4 debates so far. Common ground. Yay!
Debate Round No. 1


Hey, thanks for accepting the debate! Like I said, I'm quite new here, so you'll have to excuse me if I didn't do everything correclty the first time, I'm still getting used to debating properly.

Anyway, you say that I said that mothers must love their children? I did say that, and I'm sorry to say I overlooked the probability of postpartum depression. This is the case where sometimes, after giving birth, the mother feels that she is distant from her child and does not even love them. Nothing is wrong with that, as this can happen with some new mothers or even ones who have had children in the past. To just abandon your child by abortion, however, is an act of cruelty. Postpartum depression often gets better, and does not stay for long as the mother stil adjusts to her new life- but flat out killing an unborn child for no valid reasons is wrong. If you really do not want anything to do with the child, it is better to just give them up for adoption.

Killing can get you detained, that is true, but you seem to have misread one of my statements. I state that the act of killing in self-defense, execution, and war is alright since in most cases, you have to kill or you will be killed yourself. I do also say that an abortion from self-defense is okay as well, and you are right. If the child gives a direct threat to the mother, she should have the option to abort the baby or proceed through with it, as some mothers are willing to risk their life for their child. Also, what are your reasons for it to be okay to kill an innocent person?

The unborn child is human and person at the same time. The defenition for it is, and I quote, “any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens; a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species.” and does not exclude unborn children. True, unborn children do not have the full capacity of a fully developed human being, but hey, so does my younger cousins, and that doesn't make them less human, does it?

Because you request for my premises, I'll be happy to lay mine out, so it can help the debate later on.

P1: The unborn child has the same right to life as you and I have.
P2: Like P1, every invidiual, not yet born or born, have the right to live.
P3: People can only be killed if it's an act of self-defense, war, execution, or in the terms of abortion, if the child poses an immediate threat to the mother.
P4: Healthy pregnancies should not, by any means, be terminated for no valid reasoning.
P5: Aborting the child should be seen just as unacceptable as committing murder
P6: If the child is not wanted, they have the right to still live and just be given to an orphanage or someone else who would care for them if the mother does not wish to, or does not have the financial capability.

Conclusion: Unborn babies should not be aborted without proper reasons and legally, should be charged just as any other murder.

As for your claim about how unborn children are not actually people, I can refute that. A newly born child cannot perceive things either. They cannot make decisions or do anything by themselves yet- but they are people, and I'm sure you agree. Children, even still inside the womb, can feel pain and react to sounds, even. This is why most mothers have their unborn children listen to classical music. This is why when doctors give an abortion, the child can even feel pain, so they do have sentience.

This is where my say for round two ends :)

Hey, thanks to you too! I am, of course, open to seeing things from a different view which is why I love debates. They're really fun, and you always learn something new. Goodluck on the second round!




I'll get right into this counter-argument. The main thing that i will try to prove here is that the 'right to live', does not include the right to not be killed. In other words, the right to live does not include the right to be given means necessary for survival.

I will attempt to prove this point through two analogies.

Imagine this-
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous. But is a human pregnacy any different?

There are many similarities between this analogy and a pregnancy.
First, the dependency of the violinist on your kidneys represents the dependency of the baby on the mother
Second, the innocence of the violinist represents the innocence of a fetus
Third, the act of being kidnapped and plugged into the violinist represents the violation of the mother's desire to have an abortion. She wants an abortion, but because people like you say it is immoral, she is forced to keep the baby, hence you being forced into this position.
Feel free to dispute any of these things.

I would imagine that you would agree, and allow yourself to be unplugged from the violinist. The point of the analogy is to show you that the violinist's right to live is not being violated, as our right to live does not include the right not to be killed.

I'll demonstrate this again from a different angle. Imaging you have a fatal sickness. You will die in five days if you don't find a cure. However a cure exists. If Johnny depp touches your forehead, you will live. But if he doesn't, you will die. If that silly? Hopefully, it is. Johnny depp is under no obligation to keep you living, just as the mother is under no obligation to keep her fetus alive. Again, this demonstrates that our universal right to live does not mean that we will get the means necessary to live. Just like the fetus will also not get the means necessary to live.

This is why I think that killing innocent people (in some cases) is acceptable. Johnny depp is certaintly allowed to leave you to die, and you are allowed to leave the violinist to die, and the mother is allowed to leave the fetus to die.

Now let's respond to your premises. I somewhat disagree with premise one, but ill let it slide. I agree with premise two, as long an 'individual' is synonymous with 'person'. Premise three is the premise I have the most issues with. I will discuss this next paragraph. I obviously disagree with premise four, since that is more of a conclusion than a premise, but whatever. Same goes for premises 5-6.

Now, lets talk about premise three. You say that people can only be killed it it's an act of self defence, war, or execution, or if the fetus poses a threat to the mother. However, if you agree that you would kill the violinist my unplugging yourself from him, then you have contradicted yourself, good sir. If you would willingly kill the violinist by removing his lineline (aka, you!), then you have contradicted your premise three. Because you would be killing a person, even though they are not posing a threat to anyone! This directly opposes your premise three! (as long as you agree that detaching yourself from the violinist would be ok). Also, if you would keep yourself to the violinist, that would be a kindness on your part, not something you own him.

You say a newborn child is not sentient. However the definition of sentience is "capable of being aware of its surroundings, its relationships with other animals and humans, and of sensations in its own body, including pain, hunger, heat or cold."
Fetuses are aware of it's surrounding, as you stated, however, it is not aware of it's relationships with other humans. It doesn't even know other living things exist. However, a newborn child is actually aware of it's relationship with other animals. Even if this whole paragraph is wrong, my argument still persists. I actaully don really care about this point, as it is not the focal point of my argument. The focal point of me argument is that the fetuses right to live does not entitle it to the unlimited use of your body. In the same way that the violinist's right to live does not entitle him to the use of your body.
End of round two.

Always good having a non-trolly debate :)
Good Luck for next round.
Debate Round No. 2


Okay, let me first of say that there is a huge difference between this situation and actual pregnancy, but for the sake of the debate I'll go with it. Let's say I was strapped to a violinist, and the doctor does tell me I have to be stuck with the violinist for nine months to ensure his recovery and safety. In a pregnancy, the violinist is the baby's dependency to the mother. Since the doctor tells me I will have to be there for nine months, I would agree and just wait it out. This is what you would call an act of kindness, and it IS, don't get me wrong, but to me I feel like it's also your duty that since you're there, you'd just wait out the nine months. To kill someone is something you can't shake, intentional or not. That's why mothers who get their children aborted often experience hearing crying or wailing of babies that aren't even there. They're sometimes wracked with guilt of what they'd done- and killing the violinist would be the same.

Let's go over with your analogies about this.

What you say about the third one- the one where you say that the act of being plugged in with the violinist represents the "violation" of the mother's "right" to ask for an abortion is immoral. Like I've said before, usually the act of killing would get you detained and I don't see why the killing of the baby is any different. Sure, the child is using the mother's body and is entirely dependent, but that does not mean the mother should just go and ask for an abortion. In America, from what I know, abortions are legal, right? Where I live they are absolutely not, probably because my country's mostly Catholic (my beliefs on being pro-life aren't entirely based around religion, though). They do not see the unborn child is a person or human, but that is wrong. Recent studies have proved that from the moment the egg is fertilized, we have a person in the mother's womb, not just some thing that magically sprouts into a person. Now for your claim that I would agree to unplug myself from the violinist, that would depend on the circumstances, but since the doctor only says I would be strapped to the violinist for nine months, I'd have no problem and even be glad to save a person's life.

Now, to your other angle. Of course Johnny Depp can choose not to touch my forehead, but since he now has that power over whether I live or die, if he can prevent it, he technically has an obligation to do so. I am sure that if he didn't, people all over the world would see him as a horrible person- letting someone die when you could have perfectly done something about it, right? It is quite ridiculous to fly to some part of the world just to touch someone forehead, yes? Honestly though, if you can, you should.

What you say about premise three is correct. I mostly condemn and am against the act of killing, except for a few circumstances. Like I said, whether I would or would not choose to be unplugged depends vastly on the circumstances, but if the doctor states, "Just stay here for nine months, and you and the violinist will be free to go." I'd happily oblige. I know some people would think that sounds stupid, but it's my belief. As much as possible, I do not want a life to be taken, especially under my own doing.

A newborn child cannot see, actually. They develop into seeing shapes eventually (don't quote me on that, I'm not quite sure when that happens) until they can actually see people clearly. They're not aware of animals, I'm sure, and even for quite some time, other people. They don't know that they're being picked up by their mom or guardian. If the unborn child does not know that other living things exist, I'm positively sure newborns don't either.

The baby's use of the body is not unlimited. We should not see being pregnant as the act of doing a favor for the unborn child. The use of the mother's body is only temporary, it's not forever. Imagine a mother telling her child when they disbehaved, "Be thankful I didn't abort you! You're so much trouble!" how would the kid feel? If you were that kid, how would you feel? Hurt, because the fact that the the mother could have or may have even thought about it makes me sick.

Goodluck on the next round :) Sorry if I seem kind of off in this one. I'm currently reviewing for stuff.


First off, let me say that your are not obligated to save the violinist's life, and neither is Johnny depp obligated to save your life. The fact that you chose to save the violinist's life is just a kindness of your part, not something you owe the violinist. Likewise, Johnny depp is not obligated to save my life, because that would be kinda stupid. If we had to save a life whereever it was possible, then hundreds of doctors would be obligated to go over to africa to treat the fatally ill, and hundreds of soldiers would be obligated to save one hostage, just because if they didn't, they would be killing the hostage, or killing the africans with fatal diseases. This is why it is stupid to have obligations to save people's life. We can't arrest Johnny depp on the grounds that he didn't save my life, because he did nothing wrong. In a similar fashion, we can't arrest the mother on the grounds that she didn't save the fetuse's life, because she didn't do anything wrong.

You say that killing the violinist would leave you wracked with guilt- and same with pregnancy. Well, actaully, most women that have had an abortion don't feel guilty- they tried to make the best decision they possibly could. You also say that you would have a duty to save the violinist. But most of you readers should be able to figure out why this is incorrect. (if my opponent doesn;t understand, it is because we cannot have positive duties: we can only prevent people from doing certain stuff, and force people to refrain from certain actions. It would be unwise to force people to do actions. This is why people make laws like "Dont steal! Dont kill! Dont rape!" because alll the universal laws only contain negative duties). So Johnny depp will not be making a wrong decision if he doesn't want to save my life.

In a way, abortion is like taking away the life support from your unconcious child. I'm sure we've all heard the story- A child is involved in a car crash and is put on life support. 5 months later, the child is still on life support, and the mother makes the hard desicion to pull the plug. If the parents of a child are allowed to kill that child, then why is a fetus any different? You may argue that it is ok since the child had a very little chance on surviving, and is likely to die. I would reply with "so what? If your willing to say that it is sometimes ok to kill innocent people if they have a low chance of suriving, then your position is very abeitrary and flimsy.

Also, the point of my violinist analogy was to disprove your premise three. Since we have now realised that we are not obligated to keep the violinist living, this directly contradicts your premise three.

P3: People can only be killed if it's an act of self-defense, war, execution, or in the terms of abortion, if the child poses an immediate threat to the mother.

This premise three is obviously incorrect, because parents can kill children on life support, I can kill innocent violinists, and johnny depp is not obligated to keep me alive. Because of this condradiction, my opponent has a fatal flaw in his argument, and in his most important premise. Thank you to Con for this debate.

Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by BackCommander 2 years ago
"Hey, a tip for future debate, try laying out your arguments with premises"
Everyone should do that, it ensures that everyone can just point out their arguments illogical foundation, thereby destroying the arguments that were based off of it.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: Trombonist// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Both Con and Pro used very good conduct in this debate, so that point was a draw. They both had excellent spelling and grammar, so that point was also a draw. The main point that I would like to draw attention to was the hypothetical scenarios that Pro laid out for Con. He made the point that if Con refuses the scenario, he is a hypocrite. Con decided, however, to do the opposite of what Pro intended, making Pro's point moot. However, Pro decided in his final round to explain to Con what he should have picked. It is for this reason that I believe Con won the debate. Pro set up a scenario and Con honestly chose the action Pro wasn't expecting based on his morals. Really interesting debate!

[*Reason for removal*] As part of any assessment of a given debate, the voter is required to examine not just the arguments given, but how they played into a decision. Merely stating that one side won a certain point in the voter's view is insufficient in this regard " the voter needs to explain why that point was consequential, particularly with regards to how it reflects on the resolution. It's unclear how that is the case from this RFD, as the voter appears more concerned with the single point than they do with the overall debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.