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

Should Abortion Be Legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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: 10/18/2015 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 600 times Debate No: 81152
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




The only reason you should every abort a child is (1) the mother of the child was raped or inscest. (2) If the mother's life is in danger. Teenage mothers that say that they are "too young to have a child" They should have closed their legs. Or even wear a $1.50 condom.


Suppose a camper starts a forest fire, and we must quickly choose one of two choices: we can immediately extinguish the fire before it gets out of control, or we can throw the perpetrator into the flames, punishing him for failing to control his camp fire. The former option neglects the man's punishment, the latter option leaves us with a dangerous fire to fight.

To me, damage control matters more than punishment. When Con legislates against late-stage damage control, simply because it should have been implemented earlier, he prioritizes "punishment" above the social good. A society with such priorities would never allow a surgeon to operate on a smoker's lungs, or an endocrinologist to treat a diabetes patient.

Larger populations do not have to be dangerous. They do not have to cause war, famine, or drought. We can raise children to think critically and world-consciously, with proper educations and careful parenting. But parents who are not ready to be parents - for financial or pyschological reasons - must do us all a favor and avoid being parents. Unless we obtain miracle levels of individual responsibility, a larger population will always require a larger economy, one which will drain more energy, emit more greenhouse gases, and inflict more crime upon itself. As resources drain away, leaders of various societies will increasingly wage war on each other for what is left.

Allowing abortion isn't enough to control our population, but making it illegal is a huge step backwards.
Debate Round No. 1


First of all abortion is must cruel and disgusting thing in the world. Your end a life that has no control of what your doing to it. The child in the mother's stomach has no control on what you do it. I know a few people that always say "What if that baby had the cure for cancer in there brain" but that life was ended because that parent decided to end that child's life.

If you can't afford to have a baby theres multiple things you can do with the baby. (1) You can put the baby up for adoption and a couple that cannot reproduce can take that baby out of your hands. (2) If you can't afford it why are trying to have a baby, if you can afford it you shouldn't be having sex. (3) Put a damn condom on.

Their's only one person in the world thats aloud to take lives of child like that. The lord himself.


The debates go back and forth forever about what defines a human life. Is it a human life in sperm form? Zygote form? When it has elbows? A cerebrum? When its brain starts producing its own chemicals? Many believe it clearly becomes a human life when it begins breathing, but don’t trust any consensus - there is an individual and naturally built expert on this topic. It's called a mother.

Before birth, a pregnancy is physiologically a piece of the mother. Every system in a woman's body alters itself. Under the influence of natural emotions, instincts, and chemicals, and with medical advice from a doctor, a woman makes an infinitely more informed judgment call about what is growing inside of her than I or my opponent. There is a risk that if we reduce such complexity to an absolute law, society will become dumber.

"Put the baby up for adoption," or "Put a damn condom on," my opponents says. He concludes that abortion is under the jurisdiction of God.
Well, there are many measurements that define the quality of a debate performance, but bossiness is not one of them, nor is religious conviction. A rational audience is persuaded by logical validity and information. To stay on topic, I invite my opponent to expound on why we should trust a legislature to understand a mother’s body better than she can.
Debate Round No. 2


(Pro) "Should trust a legislature to understand a mother"s body better than she can" I would like to know who's decision is it to get pregnant? Who's decision is it to have a penis inserted in to her? Who's decision is to have the penis inserted without a condom on?


Nobody is suggesting it was the legislature's idea to do anything regarding a penis or a condom. Pro's argument rests.

P.S. It's spelled "whose." The word "who's" is only used as a substitute for "who is."
Debate Round No. 3


IPrentice forfeited this round.


It is always the moralists who do the most harm. Abortion is the logical outcome of civilization, only the jungle gives birth and moulders away as nature decrees. Man plans.
- Max Frisch
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 3 years ago
Conduct to Pro, Con forfeited last round.

S&G, I'll leave alone, but Con, you should be more careful with your word choice and spelling.

There were no sources provided by either side.

Pro tried to demonstrate that abortion should be legal because:
1. The ills of unfit parents raising children outweigh the need to punish said parents with abortion laws.
2. Unfit parents should have the ability to avoid being parents.

Con tries to refute the resolution by saying:
1. Abortion kills an unaware life that has no control inside the mom.
2. If parents can't afford a child, adoption and abstinence can be utilized instead of abortion...god decides what life is.

Pro responds to Con's #1 by saying that it's not necessarily a life unless the mom declares it to be so, and that this "life" is a physiological piece of the mother...making an absolute law would not account for this maternal declaration.
Pro responds to Con's #2 by saying that appealing to god is appealing to bossiness (authority) and appealing to religious convictions lacks logical validity and info.

Con does not respond to Pro's responses about the mom being the decider, absolute law's incongruity with the complex issue of maternal decision, appeal to authority and religion lack logical validity.

Pro's responses were convincing and never refuted by Con. I found the "pregnancy is a piece of the mother" quite well put and persuasive.
Also, I think I'm going to declare that Con in fact conceded the debate in the 1st round.

Con said "The only reason you should every abort a child is (1) the mother of the child was raped or inscest. (2) If the mother's life is in danger."

Con stated that there are reasons you should abort a child, which to me affirms the resolution that abortion should be legal, because Con agrees abortion should happen.

Arguments to Pro.
Posted by brant.merrell 3 years ago
Was your round 3 an accident? No pun intended . . .
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MagicAintReal 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.