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

Should Abortion be Legal?

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2018 Category: Society
Updated: 5 days ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 530 times Debate No: 119348
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (0)




I want to know what the opposition thinks- why abortion should continue to be legal, And up to which point of pregnancy it is acceptable. My position is that life begins at the moment of conception and all abortion, Including in cases of rape or medical danger to the life of the mother are immoral and inherently wrong, Because it is a human being in the womb. Let's have a productive conversation.


I would also love to have a productive conversation/debate as well. So it seems that you will be arguing against abortion in all cases. Correct me if I'm wrong in the next section. I am actually against abortion in nearly all instances, So I'm considered pro-life. However, I do believe that abortion should be legal for very few circumstances, Such as when giving birth would have a high chance of killing the pregnant woman. Other than that, I would agree that abortion shouldn't be allowed, Even in cases of rape.

Now, The reason why I think abortion should be legal in that circumstance is because I would consider it similar to self defense. For example, Let's say that someone is trying to stab you with a knife, But you have a gun in your hand. I would say it is moral for the person holding the gun to defend themselves, Even if they would kill the attacker. Similarly, The fetus is like the attacker, Making the pregnant woman the defender. I would also say that the women should protect her life, Even if she would end up killing the fetus,
I look forward to your response!
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for relating your point of view so we can have a reasonable discussion.

I"ve come across some people that share your rare cases argument. Let"s start the breakdown with a stat just so we can see how many mothers are actually threatened with life or death and are thus acting in "self-defense. " According to the CDC, About 700 women die in the US per year due to "pregnancy or delivery complications. " That"s a lot, But when put next to the 3. 86 million births per year in the States, It equals out to 0. 018% of mothers that actually die. My argument is simple; there is no way to tell the mother that she is absolutely for sure going to die, And thus we should err on the side of protecting life at all costs. It sounds like you believe the baby is a person with rights but that it is comparable to someone trying to stab you with a knife and murder you. Murder is all about intent, And the same with a pro-abortion self-defense argument. This child has no thought or intent to kill its mother, And it can"t be held to the same standard as a weapon-yielding attacker. Therefore if there is no intent how can you be defending yourself. . ?

There"s a book written by Judith Jarvis Thomson that describes your position, She uses a particular analogy that I can discuss in my next response, But I want to see what you think of this part first. Again, The numbers are so small of women dying from "medically-necessary" abortions that I"m hardly worried about that compared to the 3, 000 innocent lives taken every single day- not per year- day-just in the U. S.

https://www. Cdc. Gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pregnancy-relatedmortality. Htm


Thanks for your response!
"According to the CDC, About 700 women die in the US per year due to 'pregnancy or delivery complications. '"
I concede this. This is why I am against abortion in general, Unless the baby will kill the mother. You also said that "The numbers are so small of women dying from 'medically-necessary' abortions that I'm hardly worried about that compared to the 3, 000 innocent lives taken every single day- not per year- day-just in the U. S. " Which I agree. That's why I think I specified that abortion should only be legal for women that are trying to save themselves and not for other cases. However, I think you overlook that if abortion wasn't allowed, Even if the fetus is likely to kill the mother, Then the cases of dying from pregnant or delivery complications would be higher. This is due to that since abortion is legal in the US, Many mothers that know they are liable to have medical complications would simply abort the fetus.

I know that the baby has absolutely no intent to killing, But regardless, Self defense can still be applied in situations like this. Let's say that someone is completely mentally insane and attacks another. I would definitely say that in that situation, The person being attacked should defend themselves, Even if they have to kill the mentally insane. However, Even if I agree that self-defense isn't applicable to abortion, It is very true that the fetuses will still very much kill their mother if they have medical complications. Should the women be allowed to kill the fetus to save her own life? I think so.

"3, 000 innocent lives taken every day" because of abortions? Very true. However, If we allow abortion only for women with perilous medical conditions, Then we will save nearly all of those lives taken per day and allow the women to live as well.

h t t p : / / w w w. B b c. C o. U k / e t h i c s / a b o r t i o n / p h i l o s o p h i c a l / s e l f d e f e n c e. S h t m l
Debate Round No. 2


OK great I'm so glad we"re talking about this!
"The simple fact is that the poisoning with saline, Or dismemberment of a baby in utero is never needed to save a mother"s life. Early delivery is sometimes needed, But never a direct intentional killing of the unborn child. "

This was a quote from an online forum that I absolutely agree with. It is never necessary to DIRECTLY (sorry, Used caps because there's no italics on this site) kill an unborn, Innocent child. What sometimes is necessary is removing body parts (i. E. Fallopian tube) from the mother to preserve her life, That may result in the child dying INDIRECTLY.
So we"ve actually found quite a bit of common ground here: we both recognize that abortion is killing a living human being, Even though it is smaller and less developed than us. We both agree women should not be dying as a result of the children in their wombs, And we both see that people should be able to defend themselves and protect their lives at all costs, Even if it requires the taking of another life. That"s where we agree. The small boundary where we disagree is in one of your final sentences: "Should the women be allowed to kill the fetus to save her own life? I think so. "

I would change that positioning to: Should women be allowed to remove their fallopian tubes, Even if their unborn child may die as a result of it? I think so. There"s a big difference between extracting a child and pulling apart its limbs, Sucking out its brains and disposing of it versus removing a fallopian tube and doing everything possible to save the child, Yet realizing its chances of survival are slim. Again, The intent behind actions is so important.
Either way, Abortion has killed more human lives than World War II did and it"s just getting started. I believe the self-defense argument is just one way to keep the voices of the silent holocaust at bay.

Thank you for the debate, My good man. God bless.


Thank you for your response!

Yes, It does seem as that we agree that abortion is killing a human being, Women shouldn't be forced to die because of childbirth, And self defense should be allowed. However, You also said that "The small boundary where we disagree is in one of your final sentences". Of course abortion shouldn't be allowed if the unborn fetus does have a chance of living, Even if the chance of living is very small. However, I do like to note that most women that have severe medical complications regarding childbirth will also have severe medical complications if they have surgery to remove the fetus from their womb. In regards to your statement on removing fallopian tubes, I would hate to break it to you, But removing the fallopian tubes with surgery will only work in some cases to save the mother's life. Most other cases would have to involve surgery to cut into the uterus and extract the fetus out. Sadly, Though, Mothers that have medical complications so grave that they would have a high chance of dying if they gave birth will also have a high chance of dying as well if surgery is performed upon them.

In conclusion: abortion should be allowed in some cases. If there is a way to keep the fetus alive without endangering the mother, Then I would affirm that abortion isn't necessary in that case. However, If the mother will be liable to die in the process of saving the fetus, And she will also be liable to die because of giving birth, Then abortion should be allowed for that scenario.

I certainly hope that will abortion is used minimally to save most unborn children. God bless you too.
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by John_C_1812_II 6 days ago
I am for Female Specific Amputation, And against Pregnancy abortion. Why? Pregnancy abortion is an admission of guilt, And how do I stop a person form admitting guilt? Tyrannical governing or Prove them wrong. There is more than on type abortion, And the basic principle is that abortion must be performed on something that has officially started. This makes the woman"s claim in general on pregnancy abortion, By the details of united state that is documented by consent a lie. Half the idea of a united state is argument life did not officially start.

We are not interpreting law we are addressing constitutional principles. The basic principle with precedent is does law provide separation from public welfare based on admissions of guilt to the public? Is immunity a place of international diplomacy here?

Also woman are looking for a United State Constitutional Right, Is 60 plus years a far enough time frame to allow them to find one? Had they even been looking for one or has blame set against United States Condition itself been the focus of any problem?
Posted by logicae 1 week ago

I agree that law can be misinterpreted, But that is irrelevant to the morality of abortion. Also, I think that laws in general do not prove abortion to be right or wrong. Laws only state commands, But do not justify them. It is our Job as people of the law to justify or condemn good/bad laws and in this case I see no real justification on your part to the morality of abortion.

Are you against abortion or for it? For whichever, Why?

To Truth! -logicae
Posted by John_C_1812_II 1 week ago
You and missmedic are missing the issue of law. Admission of a crime used the wrong way is unconstitutional. Pregnancy Abortion is an admission of guilt that is to be prove wrong. The alibi of self-defense is the fact that must be separated from the public by judicial impartiality, In defense of the United states Constitution I am going to address a grievance publicly. As no common defense has been granted in the form of liberty.
Some woman as a group by basic principle make a public claim that sex is free. Meaning it must have no cost or self-value. Pregnancy is simply a cost of sex. This is a Presidential state of the union as it represents a united state that can be shared by all men as truth.
Posted by logicae 1 week ago

"Law enforcement does not reduce abortion. Law enforcement endangers the women's health and put the control of abortions in the hands of the criminals. What is the purpose of making it illegal?
If you want to reduce abortions it would be through the health care system and the education system, Not law enforcement. "

1. Even if that was true, Consider if the same thing applied to murder. Would it be right then to legalize murder?
2. Why do you think making abortion illegal will not decrease abortions? Making it harder to get abortions does not lead to more/same number of abortions, But instead logically follows to drop their use.
3. A common argument that some pro abortionists make is that currently abortion levels have fallen.

Because this seems to contradict our logic, I took a look at the factors involved. It turns out that after abortion was legalized in 1973, Abortions (logically) rose up from just above 600, 000, To over a million four years later. The rate stayed in the 1 million range until 1997 as "the number of abortion
"providers" has dropped from a high of 2, 918 in 1982
to 1, 671 in 2014. " (Link to the information quoted below)

Now that we understand the full story it is easy to see why abortions have fallen, Because simply the number of provides have fallen. In the same way Missmedic, If abortion was made illegal, We would see these abortion providers drop to 0 and so the level of unborn genocide will logically decrease from there.

To Truth! -logicae

https://nrlc. Org/uploads/factsheets/FS01AbortionintheUS. Pdf
Posted by missmedic 1 week ago
Law enforcement does not reduce abortion. Law enforcement endangers the women's health and put the control of abortions in the hands of the criminals. What is the purpose of making it illegal?
If you want to reduce abortions it would be through the health care system and the education system, Not law enforcement.
Posted by logicae 1 week ago

"Said in the simplest way it is all woman who are capable of becoming pregnant who kill the living egg they carry by not having sexual intercourse. Versus. Only a portion of woman who will ever officially stop life by ending a pregnancy after becoming pregnant.
This understanding is important as it describes clear entry into military understanding of United States Constitutional defense. "

I think this comment states that the crux of you argument is equating a human egg and sperm, To that of an actual human (union of sperm and egg). Why do you think this? Scientifically an egg, Is just and egg (same for sperm) with half of the human genome, But once fertilized it is now a human with a full set of different DNA and unlike the separate egg and sperm, Grows to be a full grown human. You have to recognize these important differences.

To Truth! -logicae
Posted by John_C_1812_II 1 week ago
"Since abortion is legal in the United State Technically it isn"t considered murder. "
Technically abortion is not in a united state so its legality left open, Which is why In Vitro fertilization is addressing the Technicality in consideration of privacy like female specific amputation may have also addresses privacy.
Posted by John_C_1812_II 1 week ago
The idea is that murder is made legal by immunity that is supposed created in a hard to understand admission of guilt, While it is only the admission of guilt said out loud with the word abortion which was to mean pregnancy abortion that is legislated as law being legal.
Posted by John_C_1812_II 1 week ago
Sorry. . . ". .

It can take some time to process ConservativeHaven it is an address of grievance sponsoring a representation to United State Constitution. The basis of legality of Pregnancy abortion has everything to do with the admission of guilt and very little to do with the morality of crime that is admitted.

First in a grievance is Pregnancy abortion is an admission of guilt not as well as accusation of murder. A pregnancy abortion also takes place in the scientific and medical field as In vitro Fertilization. In this process a fertilization takes place outside the woman"s body, Outside the womb. No pregnancy by basic principle as it is aborted, Official stopped.
Posted by ConservativeHaven 1 week ago
Ok John_C_1812_II. . . I can't argue with any of your positions because I don't understand them. . . Female Specific Amputation? Pregnancy abortion? Admission of guilt? Fabricated justice? That's not what the debate is about and I think you're throwing random words together and trying to build an argument off of it. That's ok- to each their own- but I can't defend my position against that.
No votes have been placed for this debate.