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

Is Abortion bad?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,648 times Debate No: 51707
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)




Arbortion is GOOD!!! WHY? BECAUSE THERE ARE ALREADY TOO MANY HUMANS IN THIS WORLD ALREADY AND WE NEED TO CUT OFF THE POPULATION NUMBERS BY A LOT!!! If you think that it is murder, then you are just akward, because the thing is not even born yet, so it is not tecnaclly alive, also, mothers will not suffer from being mothers! HORRAY!!!


It has been that all the humans in the earth can live in Texas in a 16,000 sq. feet house/apartment, and the rest of the world to spare. There are many places that we do not live yet that we can live in. Yes, we must consider native people, and animals before settling in an area, but we still have plenty of space to spare.

For abortion, it is morally wrong. It is a person you are killing that has done nothing to deserve to die. if done by rape, then it is the rapist's fault, not the unborn child. There are of life which we divide life, it doesn't matter what stage it is in, it still a person for example. A seed, is a tree, but has not grown up yet, but it still a tree and will always be a tree.
Debate Round No. 1


"There are many places that we do not live yet that we can live in.. we still have plenty of space to spare."
Ok... WHAT? Why should we live everywhere huh? Why do we have the right to say "Oh Uh Gee lets move here because we can" that is just wrong, mainly because we should not be expanding! We should be conservative with where we live, NOT TRYING TO EXPAND ALL THE TIME!!! And "SPACE"??? No way do wer have "SPACE" The is a lie my friend because there are about on billion peope on this earth and there are Even more creatures, plants, and natural substances covering the entire earth, and if you think we can just "move in" then you got another thing coming!!!

"It is the rapist's fault, not the unborn child. "
I agree with you on that, but you are ignoring the fact that just because it is someone else's fault, does not mean it is RIGHT for you to hold on to the BURDEN!!! Thats right, A BURDEN, and if it is forced onto you, then why should anyone have to take it??? Why should that person suffer with a kid when they might not be ready, or even old enough? Think about it, if it happened to you at like age 14, WOULD YOU WANT TO HAVE THE KID???

"It doesn't matter what stage it is in, it still a person for example. A seed, is a tree, but has not grown up yet, but it still a tree and will always be a tree."
Objection; It is NOT a tree, IT IS A SEED!!! THATS WHAT IT IS!!! There is a huge difference that you fail to recongnise, every thig has a place, are there is a reason for everything. Seeds, unlike trees, are small, and can be picked up by the wind and carried away, or stored in a animal's den or borrow to be eaten, then it travels some more until it can plant itself! So tell me, is it the same when a handful of seeds is eaten by a creature while a whole forset of trees is being cut down??? It is the same with the unborn child, it is not a human, it is a growning little THING in a person, feeding until it is big enough to be born AND THEN becomes a human! It is the sacrifice that must be made.


There are places that we can't live, but there places that we can live that are not inhabited by humans or animals yet. I'm not saying that we should move there because we can, because some places are are not safe, like a place that has volcanoes, or harsh weathers, or little chance to thrive, not much resources, or not enough water. Like the South Pole, I'm not saying we should go there just because we can. We would all die because of the harsh weather and conditions, we would have competition for food, and have high chances of being dead within a short hour.

Some burdens you have to take. Take for an example, a king and his kingdom. The king has the burden to take care of his kingdom, his subjects and protect them. He can't refuse it unless someone is willingly to take it. The generals of World War 2 had a burden, for the Allies, it was to prevent the Germans from taking over the world. They couldn't refuse it, for there was no one else to take it. Unlike a king, they couldn't just hand over the burden, not many people would be good generals like they were. If they didn't take the burden to help the people that were captured, and prevent them from going into their lands, their lands would be taken. Anyone who hid Jews or anyone condemned not human to the gas camps or anyone who defied them. By refusing to take the burden to prevent the Axis from achieving world domination, they would doom everyone.

I agree that it is a hard burden, but that doesn't mean just because it's hard you shouldn't accept them. If I was raped, and pregnant, I would just give birth to my child and give him/her to a family that wanted him/her allowing my child a chance to live and enjoy the world.

A seed, like an acorn, is a young oak tree. An oak tree is a mature oak tree. In biology, something must be something or nothing. A baby is a human, a toddler, teenager, young child, adult, is a human. Let me pose this question to you: What is the unborn?
Debate Round No. 2


Let me give you some reason why it is good:
1) Abortion is safer for the mother then giving birth.
2) Abortion controls overpopulation.
3) Abortion prevents infanticide.
4) Abortion prevents a rape survivor from further trauma.
5) Abortion prevents severely malformed babies from suffering.
Ya, a grown up person is much more important to the world than an infant that is not even born yet, that is a fact.

As for the "Burden argument", Taking care of a kingdom is COMPLETLY different than giving birth to a child that you don't even want!!! When takiing care of a kingdom, you are putting everything on the line for your people, but a kid is just one kid, not to mention UNBORN kid, who dosn't even know what is going on!!!

And like I said for the "tree" thing: Is eating a hadful of sees equal to a forest being chopped down?
And to Answer your question, it means: Adjective; not yet born, (of a baby)


I could not understand your answer, please answer in a more clear way.
All the other things we spoke about has nothing to do with our argument, we're not talking about trauma, we're talking about is abortion is bad or good, nothing else.
My statement on the examples of World War 2 and a kingdom as a burden was used to tell you that some burdens cannot be lifted, it had nothing to do with giving birth to a child that you do not want.
Overpopulation has nothing to do with abortion.
Eating acorns is the same as chopping a forest of oak trees, whether young or mature, they're oak trees and it is same. Except that the acorn did not have the chance to grow into a mature oak tree.
In biology, I repeat, take for example, an acorn. In biology, you classify it as something or nothing. An acorn is classified as an oak tree, if you say that an acorn isn't an oak tree, then you are saying in biology terms, that it is nothing, which it is not.
Debate Round No. 3


"Overpopulation has nothing to do with abortion."
...Uh, IT HAVE JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING TO DO WITH ABORTION!!! Are you kidding me? It is mainly because of overpopulation that this is an option for people!
And you are wrong, Eating seeds and chopping down trees are nothing a like, WHY??? Because when you eat seeds, they serve one of their purposes in that way, and when you chop down a forest, you are getting rid of not only the trees, but the homes animals make in them and the environmnet itself! You see, just because they are telenically the "same thing" does not mean they hav the same potential and purpose! If that were true, than there would be no such thing as death or canibalism!

Having a baby can leave a negative Impact on the Mother's Life: Taken at face value, this reason may sound selfish. But a pregnancy that occurs in the wrong place at the wrong time can have a lifelong impact on a woman's ability to raise a family and earn a living. Less than half of teens who become mothers before age 18 graduate from high school. College students who become pregnant and give birth are also much less likely to complete their education than their peers.Employed single women who become pregnant face an interruption of their jobs and careers. This impacts their earning ability and may make them unable to raise a child on their own. For women who already have other children at home or are caring for aging relatives, the reduction in income resulting from pregnancy/birth may bring them below the poverty level and require them to seek public assistance.

Also, are you saying that women are wrong to choose what they do to their own bodies, especilly with their own child? If you thin ]k thats wrong, then you yourself are wrong!


First, I want to point out, women being pregnant doesn't have much to do with abortion. I have seen the percentage of girls getting pregnant at teen ages. In America, most of the impregnated girls had you know what willingly with their boyfriends, if it hinders their school or career, it is their own fault for agreeing to such terms. A child comes from that, and they should know that and the price for doing such act, it is not the baby's fault, it is the mother's fault since she choose despite knowing the penalty. They had the choice, and they made the choice and they should be the ones to pay the price of their foolishness, not the child, for the child did not had a choice, unlike its' mother.
A acorn has as much potential as an oak tree, if allowed, it will mature. Eating seeds prevents the chance of them growing in an area for animals just like chopping down trees drives out animals.
You have to answer the question. If you say that an unborn baby is not a human, give me proof that it is not. If you say that it is pre human, give me examples.
You are not supporting why the unborn is not a human, thus you are not explaining why unborn babies are not human. Some of the things that you are saying has nothing to do with our debate. If someone was to look at this, they would see why I think the unborn babies are human, while if they look at your arguments. They would not be able to see why the unborn child is not human because you are not giving evidence for it. Thus, you are loosing the debate since you are not explaining your side and giving evidence why you think your side it right.
You may argue that you are giving evidence that your view is right, but from I've seen so far and what others seen (if they have), you have said not a word on the matter. The things you said was trauma they would experience, overpopulation and burdens, they are not related to the topic.
I'm trying to point out some flaws of your arguments, and trying to get you to understand that you are not debating correctly.
Debate Round No. 4


"I'm trying to point out some flaws of your arguments, and trying to get you to understand that you are not debating correctly."
...YEA RIGHT, and I suppose you are just Perfect huh? First of all, your little acorn argument makes no sense, I do not even know WHY I even tried to argue against that cause it has nothing to do with the mater, and you obviously have no idea how seeds and trees work. Why you might ask? it is because you ignore the fact that a seed can still grow after it has been digested, and also, there are abundance of seeds, and not all of them get a chance to grow, eaten or not.
Second, here are even more reasons: Financial Instability- Whether she's a high school or college student, or a single woman earning just enough to live independently, many expectant mothers lack the resources to cover the staggeringly high costs associated with pregnancy, birth, and childrearing, especially if they do not have health insurance.
Saving for a baby is one thing, but an unplanned pregnancy places an enormous financial burden on a woman who cannot afford to care for an infant, let alone pay for the necessary OB/GYN visits that will ensure healthy fetal development. Lack of adequate medical care during pregnancy places the newborn at a higher risk for complications during birth and in early infancy. According to breastfeeding counselor Angela White, the cost of an average hospital birth is approximately $8,000 and prenatal care provided by a physician can cost between $1,500 and $3,000. For the nearly 50 million Americans who do not have insurance, this would mean an out-of-pocket expense of $10,000. That figure, coupled with the cost of raising a child from infancy through age 17 (estimated at over $200,000 per child), makes giving birth a terrifying proposition for someone who is still in school, or lacks a steady income, or simply does not have the financial resources to continue a pregnancy with adequate medical care and give birth to a healthy baby.
Relationship Problems and/or Unwillingness To Be a Single Mother- The majority of women with unplanned pregnancies do not live with their partners or have committed relationships. These women realize that in all likelihood they will be raising their child as a single mother. Many are unwilling to take this big step due to the reasons described above: interruption of education or career, insufficient financial resources, or inability to care for an infant due to caregiving needs of other children or family members. Even in situations involving women cohabitating with their partners, the outlook for unmarried women as single mothers in discouraging; for women in their 20s living with their partners at the time of birth, one-third ended their relationships within two years.
Other Reasons (Mother's piont of view)- I don't want more children or I'm done with childrearing, I'm not ready to become a mother or not ready for another child, I don't want others to know about my pregnancy or that I'm having sex, My husband/partner wants me to have an abortion, There are problems with the health of fetus, There are problems with my own health, My parents want me to have an abortion. Combined with those reasons previously cited, these secondary concerns often convince women that abortion -- though a difficult and painful choice -- is the best decision for them at this time in their lives.
Also, the kid could posibly grow up in a terrible home, Could be neglected, could posiblely get abused, and could be raised wrong. The kid should not have to suffer you say? Well keeping it alive might just do that!
Third, I did not tell you why I did not think the Baby is not a human because I was trying to make you see that even though it REALLY IS A HUMAN, That is not at all the piont. The piont is that it was at first an innocent, but after it started to grow into a human, it no longer was, I was trying to keep the secret in until now. Just like in the movie "Noah" I was trying to say that humans are not innocent, and like Noah, I am thinking about the world, and no the good of human kind, since in reality, the world would be perfectly fine without us.
You might not think this is an explanation, but it is, and do you want to know the differance between an unborn kitten and an unborn human? The kitten was born and INNOCENT!!! It was born to pass on its hertiage to the next generation so that they may thrive and do their part to keep the world ALIVE! A human is only born to pollute, make waste, to destroy enviorments, to kill for no reason, and to be ungratefull little parisites to planet earth. Some people think we are the exeption to the rule of abortion, but why? How is it fair that animals like cats get spayed or neutered but its "wrong" when people have a abortion? I'll tell you why: WE DONT CARE ABOUT THEM!!! We say that "its healther for them" yet we do not think about that for ourselves, how we would be healthier if we did not give birth. No all we worry about is "oh dont kill it, its a life" Ya, we you killed off all the life when you spayed or neutered a cat! I am not saying that spaying or nutering is bad, I am just saying that we should not have the right to do it if people think its wrong if humans do it. This, my friend, is the sad, factual truth, and the reasons why abortion is good maybe not for the human race, but for the rest of the world.


First off, is it a human or not? You have not answered the question yet. The evidence you gave does not prove whether you think that an unborn baby is not human or pre human. The facts you gave is more float, not scientific to prove that the unborn child is not human or. You are not correctly proving your point.
I will make this brief, if the mother had a child willingly and was under 18, her fault unless she was raped. Killing an unborn child is equally cruel for a child to grow in a hostile environment. Putting the baby for adoption is kinder and more loving, since you are giving your birth child a chance to enjoy life as they find fit. We are innocent, but only when we're children because we do not know the difference from right or wrong, but as we mature, we loose our innocence, a baby is innocent because they do not know the difference between right or wrong. Making a cat not be able to be able to produce babies depends on how you look at it, it is cruel, but there are many stray cats without homes and haven't been adopted yet, then that makes neutering them kinder for the next generation that would become homeless. For humans, when we are young, we cannot take care of ourselves quickly like cats can, thus it is a different situation and a different answer.
Yes, animals are innocent for their actions because they don't posses a conscious like we do, giving them an excuse. As stated before, we are innocent until at an understanding of right and wrong. By the way, most people do not say "it's healthier for them", they are just concerned for the growing amount of cats that will be abandoned, homeless, and unloved.
The unborn are human are just like us, they breathe at a certain point of life, they need food to live, oxygen, they need almost all the same things we need. They have almost all the same genes as us, for we all have some different genes to make us all different. Their gene code like ours will never be used again, only by their own body. Human life is grouped by the following: egg, embryo, fetus, baby, toddler, infant, child, teen, adult, middle aged, and senior. From the start of human life to death we grouped the stages of human life.
Let me pose another question, hopefully, you will answer it. How can something dead suddenly be alive? Nothing can be dead than be alive. Here's another question to consider: when does human life begin? If you say when the heart beats, does it mean that a person is dead when his/her lungs failed? If you say when they first breathe air and use their lungs, does it mean that person is dead when his/her heart fails?
A fertilized egg is indeed alive, it hasn't developed yet because it is in the first stage of life and the single cells will multiple to become another being, except, more matured, but not mature yet. An unfertilized egg is not alive, since it has not been federalized by sperm. One last thing, all humans have the right to life, which in killing an unborn child, their right to life has been violated.
In biology, you have to give something a name, it's either something or nothing. A kitten, according to biology, it's either a cat or nothing. But the kitten isn't nothing, it's a young cat that has not matured, it applies to every living thing.
I forgot that seeds can still grow, but are you referring when the seeds are the waste materials that is extracted out of an animal's body? It can not grow when digested since it has not past the body yet, and if the seeds are digested to the point that they can no longer grow.
I would like to point out, I do not think that my arguments are perfect, I got side tracked during the third round and had to force myself on track. If we restarted the debate, I would spend more times stating why I think that the unborn child is still human than try to help you see the errors of your views that have nothing to do with the topic. I sidetracked more when briefly addresses your facts, even through you are not suppose to during a debate. Your facts, yes they are true facts, but they cannot help you in this debate, if you used them in another debate that relates to it, then they are useful. But in this debate, they are not. How does mothers that cannot support having a child do with anything with the question, is abortion bad? Neither does the movie Noah since it does not have any reference at all relating to abortion. I still have not seen a shred of evidence that you have that the unborn child is or not human. If you argue that you have said such things, I will point out to the facts you wrote that does not have anything with this debate and will kindly, but bluntly point out why they do not relate to this debate. I too have areas in debating to fix, and I will work to improve it.
Capitalizing words and adding exclamation marks makes it look like shouting, since people get carried away when shouting, not that many people can take you serious unless you write, or type your facts in a calm fashion.
Before you type any words or say anything, you must consider whether they have anything to do with the debate, and will they help you prove that your view is right. They must have something to do with the debate and prove your point. Almost nothing, perhaps all, does not have anything to do with debate and no words I have seen so far could convince me or anyone else that your view is right, except confuse them by the facts that are presented to them. You are leaving them to guess what your view is, you have not admitted that the unborn child is not human, or pre human, meaning that trying to prove that your side is right is pointless. You have to let people know what your side views and back it up with solid evidence in order to win a debate.
If you say that I have sidetracked too, yes I have in the early rounds and yes I have in the later ones, but for different reasons. For the earlier rounds it was you to see some differences. but the later ones was to briefly address the issues that have nothing to do with this debate at all, and I gave you advice on how to improve your debate. Some which weren't put into any use at all and repeated again. I am just trying to help you prepare for debating later in life, but unless you take the criticism that others and I have presented, and tried to the advice we give to help you succeed, you will never improve. The same goes for me, if I don't take the criticism, not matter how harsh or unfair it seems,I will never improve. Criticism is meant to help you and others improve on what ever you are doing, no matter how unfair or harsh it is, it's meant to help you. Unless the remarks are trolls, they don't help you, but the criticism I'm talking about is constructive criticism.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by CatsRSuperior 7 years ago
very well said Decertilation, I agree with you 100%
Posted by Decertilation 7 years ago
A fetus, according to many doctors and scientists, is indeed NOT living. Heartbeat has nothing to do with life, brainwaves do. It has been shown the period at which fetuses are aborted, they have NO brainwave activity, so therefor they are indeed dead. I can go either way with this, but Stealer, I must say, overpopulation has NOTHING to do with the space we can occupy. Overpopulation has everything to do with the environment and living conditions. While more humans are being born in mass numbers daily, hundreds and thousands of animals will be put through cruelty way worse than that of a medically dead fetus. So if you are against abortion, in a way you are leading to the cruelty of animals. EX: In the average fur product, the animal used to create that had shattered bones at the time they were skinned alive and left to bleed out slowly. I surely think this is much more important than abortions.
Posted by CatsRSuperior 7 years ago
This is for stealerofdreams: WOW... what the heck was that last argument??? I totally told you what I thought of the baby being a human, I guess you did not read it or something. And another thing, no matter how convincing you sound, the baby is not an innocent, it has evil in its genes and it was born with evil in its genes, it does not matter if it was raised wrong or right, the fact is is that if its human, it should not live. And mothers not beng able to support their kid has just about everything to do with abortion, the mother should decide what becomes of the baby, just like she will be in charge of it if she allowed it to live: THE MOTHER IS IN CHARGE! And another thing, dont tell me I cant use caps cause I can do what I want K? Your death/heart question made no sence whatsoever. And just to let you know, you did not put in any evidence either, just opinion opinion, opinion!!! And excuse me, but the "right to live" is not a right, there is a right to life, but since you keep arguing that the baby IS ALIVE when it is unborn, than it got its right to "live" the second the egg and sperm joined, thus not breaking any right to have an abortion. And another ting, do NOT tell me about critisim and how I debate on this cite, you will only make yourself look bad, so I sugest you stop it! On the cat side, the reason we even do spaying and neutering (and yes, it is healther for them, it is a fact) is becuase, yes they have no homes, but the reason for that in the first place is becuase of us, and the reason for that? There are too many humans! And there will constantly be more humans unless we step up and make the sacrifice known as abortion... I rest my case.
Posted by Teemo 7 years ago
Pro, to win this debate all you need to prove is that a fetus is living, which it is. Search it up, and you will easily find the answer, and pretty much win the debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by subgenius 7 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: both of these guys were almost incoherent and awkward, however Pro managed to make more sensible arguments. Con offered points that seemed to arbitrary and difficult to associate directly with the topic.
Vote Placed by Defro 7 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: While I agree with Con on this topic, I believe Con did not do a good job of presenting his arguments. Overall, Pro did a better job presenting his case, and addressed most, if not all of Con's points, while Con ignored some of Pro's points and carried on. Therefore, arguments go to Pro. Con loses points in conduct because Con essentially used Ad Hominen (verbal attacks) on Pro. I normally don't judge spelling and grammar very strictly unless I see something that bothers me. In round one, Con spelled "technically" so wrong, that I had to stare at it for 20 seconds.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 7 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: On the whole pro made better arguments. Cons 5th round diatribe essentially gave pro the argument. Both sides arguments were mostly unsubstantiated, however Pro did a better job in that aspect. Con made emotional appeals whereas Pro was more fact"ish" based.

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