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

Is abortion ok?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/10/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 716 times Debate No: 96011
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




Abortion shouldn't be questioned. I think it's okay depending on the situation. If you can't support it then it's going to die. If you can make it work, good for you.


I accept this debate and I wish my opponent good luck.


One of the arguments for abortion is that the fetus is not self-aware, but the fetus becomes fully aware during the 24th week of Pregnancy, which is why many abortions in the 3rd Trimester are illegal. [1] Many people believe that is the qualifications for the starting of a FDH (fully developed human) is when the creature is self-aware, but this has many flaws. One being that in cases of sleep and in cases of comas. Under these situations the person is not self-aware, does this mean that they are no longer a FDH until they have awoken? However the person’s ability to be self-aware is irrelevant to their personhood as it is an inherent capacity for self-awareness.

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.â€" He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,â€" and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.â€" He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.â€"

You can see here that this further my point as one can see that life begins at conception and throughout the child's life is concidered a human life. The moment of conception is when life starts. This is because this is when you start being and because you are beginning to being. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, founder of National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), created a movie that showed the realities of abortion to inform Americans. In his movie Silent Scream he stated, "“Modern technologies have convinced us that beyond question the unborn child is simply another human being, another member of the human community, indistinguishable in every way from any of us." Here the founder of an Abortion Rights group showed that modern technology shows us that the unborn child is indeed another human being and a valued memeber of the community though he is still unborn. [2]

"In fact, philosophers often use the terms self and person interchangeably: a capacity for self-awareness is necessary for full personhood.â€" [3]

If that is true then we can see that it’s degrading as different levels of self-awareness would vary across the board. Meaning that certain people like that of “specialâ€" peoples and those in different medical conditions would not be considered FDH and be up for “abortionâ€" depicting as such in the Unwind Trilogy by Neil Shusterman. Meaning that they would also be considered less of a person than the average American. With the quote bellow we can see that people are people because they are human, not due to something they gain nor loose in their lifetime, so this can work all across the board in this debate.

"Humans have value simply because they are human, not because of some acquired property they may gain or lose in their lifetime." (Scott Klusendorf, "Advanced Pro-Life Apologetics" Biola University lecture notes)

By accepting the legality of abortion we can see that we are endorsing that a human life is disposable as Pope Francis called it the “Throw away culture.â€" We get rid of the unborn like they are unwanted pickles on our Hamburghers from McDonald’s and just imagine the horror of never getting to see the light of day? When we look at our stages of life we can see that from it was you there at conception and you’re the same now (though taller and more mentally developed) and we can see that it was you at birth and you are here debating me, so we can see that it was you in the womb, not the body of something that would later become you. This means that once you were fetus, if it is wrong to kill you now, then it was wrong to kill you then. [4]

In the end we can see that at the least a fetus has the same FDH levels that of a person in a coma or asleep.

Every organism must be able to maintain a consistent internal environment. This is often seen done through sweating, excretion and blood plays a major role. There is no set law on how one’s internal environment must be maintained, so long as the organism can accomplish this, it’s performing Homeostasis. The Fetus performs a great deal of Homeostasis through the Placenta. The Amniotic Fluid also plays a large role in maintaining body temperature. The fluid stays slightly above the body temperature of the mother in order to keep the fetus’s body temperature where it needs to be. [5]
The hormones that help maintain Homeostasis are produced in the Placenta. The Fetus must maintain glucose homeostasis, body temperature, and body fluid homeostasis.

Every organism must require Metabolism, the transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and the decomposing of organic substances (catabolism). The energy is used to vastly support homeostasis and other phenomena.The fetus maintains a good deal of metabolism on its own. Many primary hormones, such as insulin and glucagon, don’t pass through the placenta. This means the hormones are produced within the fetus. The mother’s own hormones play a minor role in the fetus’s Metabolism. [6]

There are many who believe that life starts with a heartbeat, or some who argue that it’s about being self-sustaining. Neither is correct. Life has nothing to do with a heartbeat, or self-sustainment. This is an issue of flawed Cause and Correlation. That because someone is alive because he has a heartbeat, when in reality he has a heartbeat, and brain signals, and digestion… because he is alive. We can measure if you die by using your heartbeat, but it’s not because of your heartbeat that you are a living creature. Your heartbeat just keeps you alive. A tree has no heartbeat, nor does jellyfish, but even they are alive.
In all reality, a heartbeat is merely a side-function of Respiration, the true character of life.

Self-Sustainment isn’t used to measure life either. The idea that humans are self-sustaining is far from reality. Humans depend on bacteria to live, if we lost the trillions of microorganisms and bacteria in our bodies, we would simply begin to die. [7]

There are many humans who can’t live on their own, some using iron lungs, and others in comas. Being able to live is required; being able to do it independently for this very reason is not. It should also be noted that parasitic creatures like the Candiru, or the tapeworm also fall under this category and we still concider them alive. While this seem less than humanly, living isn’t about how pretty or desirable the creature is.

1. (
2. (Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979).
3. (
4. (
5. (
6. (
7. (

Debate Round No. 1


I already know the basic requirements of life. I' m saying that abortion is okay. If the mother can't support it then she kill's it. She does that because the baby will die under her conditions, yeah there are other alternatives. She could put her baby up for adoption and some people do that. This is a personal question with personal answers. I known someone who got an abortion because she couldn't take care of it. She didn't want put it up for adoption because she didn't trust anyone from personal experience. She didn't think society was safe to bring new life into the world. Some might just do it because they don't want kids, I don't think it's okay. But, the only reason why I support it is because people are entitled to take their own actions in their own circumstances. The society wants to make abortion illegal, I feel like they want to control people. So again, abortion is okay in some cases.


My opponent's only argument against it seems to be that if you don't want the baby then you can get rid of it. Well you can easily do that with an adoption. We can see that simply adoption actualy solves for my opponent's argument as she never makes an argument for it outside of people not being able to take care of it and adoption can solve this. My opponent's justification of being able to take their own actions is absurd. I've proved, as my opponent dropped my case, that the fetus is alive. My opponent is trying to justify murder and this can be changed to any situation even outside of aboriton where if someone doesn't want their child and can't take care of it, are we to justify infantcide now too? My opponent would say yes.

My entire case was dropped. Please extend it across.

With that I thank you and urge you to vote Con!
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by cwt002 2 years ago
It sounds like Pro, is saying that killing the baby is doing him/her a favor. In other words, the parent thinks, "life was going to be tough so I killed you, you are welcome." In fact, there were alternatives to let you live and give you life but nope my bad experience was enough to convince me to kill you. I will say probably at least 95% of abortions occur due to convenience.

Also, PRO seems to believe that it is a person's opinion whether your life matters and whether or not you get to live. Ultimately, since when does a person get to determine the value of another life?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by illegalcombat 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros started off with something more of an opinion rather than a developing argument. Pros main argument seems to be a justification based on probable bad life, trouble is such a justification also justifies infanticide which Con pointed out.
Vote Placed by FurryDragon 2 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins due to dropped arguments. Con extends his whole case, while refuting the pro side. Con wins. No points awarded for grammar, due to tiny grammatical mistakes