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

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
7_Seven_7 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 681 times Debate No: 100319
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




I will argue that abortion should be legal while con argues that abortion should be illegal. Thank you in advance for accepting, and let's have a fun debate.


Imagine if Pauline Einstien had decided to kill her one and only son. Maybe she hadn't been able to support him, maybe she didn't mean to get pregnant in the first place, but either way, the brilliant scientist who literally defined energy would never have walked the Earth. I believe every child should have a chance to grow up, see what they can become. Give the child up for adoption if you have to, but literally murdering a tiny, helpless child before letting them have a chance to do something, anything at all is downright horrible. If you are still in school and *whoops* you become pregnant, that is your own fault. Don't take it out on those who can't defend themselves, or even speak for themselves. Most people for abortion argue "Oh, it's the woman's choice. She can do what she wants!", and I'm not saying that men are deciding for women. The father should help take care of the baby, no matter how young they are. Especially if they are against abortion. But just because women can choose for themselves with their own child, it can be a man's choice to shoot a black person because he looks suspicious. It can be a woman's choice to shoot their ex for dating someone else. It can be a man's choice to rape a twelve year old girl. Just because it is a woman's own choice, it doesn't mean it is the right choice. Murder is never ok. Nobody deserves to be killed, especially if they haven't down anything except exist.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to start off by thanking my opponent for accepting this debate.

Before I go any further, here are some definitions:

Child: a person between birth and full growth (1)
Murder: the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. (2)

I am going to ignore my opponent's hypothetical opening statement because (a) it is not proof or evidence of any kind and (b) hypotheticals work just as well on the flip side and one could say, "Imagine if Hitler's mother had an abortion..."

Now onto my opponent's arguments:

1. Every child has the right to live.

I do not dispute this, but according to the definition, we are not talking about a child. We are talking about a fetus, who has the potential to become a child. With this in mind, aborting this potential of life would not be murder by definition.

And if what my opponent is implying we must protect is the potential of life, I would be curious to hear his* response on the fact that nearly all of a woman's eggs go to waste as well as a man's sperm, each with the potential of forming a life.

And while on the topic of rights, what about the woman's rights? My opponent mentions the "rights" of the fetus (who is debatably not a human being yet) as though they should override the rights of the woman (who is undoubtedly a human being with rights). If the law is not willing to respect the rights of someone who is already born, what's to say it actually cares at all about a "human being" who is not born?

2. It is the woman's (and man's) fault for becoming pregnant.

What would my opponent say in the case of rape, incest, and health issues with the mother?

3. Not allowing a "child" to grow up and experience life is horrible.

Even if the fetus was its own "human being," it is 100% dependent on the mother for survival, and no one is obligated to save anyone else. For instance, if there was someone drowning in the ocean, it is not a legal obligation for bystanders to jump in the water and save them. It may be the heroic thing to do, but it would be wrong to make this a legal requirement. Such is the case with abortion.

I look forward to the next round!


* I will refer to my opponent with male pronouns (he/him/his) as I do not know their gender.


I am sorry for my late response, I have been stuck with much schoolwork.

0. I completely disagree with your disregarding of my hypothetical statement. This kind of sentence makes one think about the possibilities of where society would be had abortion (a) happened or (b) nothing changed. So, I leave you with this: Would the world really be a better place today had neither Hitler nor Einstien lived than today? Sure, the mass murders of millions of Jews would not have occurred, which would have left today's world with greater religious stability, but the findings of Einstien may have taken decades to be discovered by others, or not discovered at all. Thinking of today, would technology even exist? Would racism be widely accepted like it was fifty years ago? No one is to say.

1. A fetus is just an analogy for an egg of an animal (no, I do not mean literally. I know humans come from eggs too, but the fetus is the fertilized version, as are, say, chicken eggs). If you do not agree with that, think about it logically. So in this round, I will be using this analogy. Why do we not eat eggs with chicks in them? According to you, they are not living (as they are embryos, even less than fetuses), so what is wrong with eating a little bit of chicken with your egg? It is because, if the answer was not obvious, the chicks are growing up to become adult chickens. Humans do not have the heart to murder these little animals. Yet with their own children, abortions are common. So why, I ask, do we treat a chicken better than our own kind? You may retaliate with "Humans have reasons such as wealth, health, or a disabiity to care for the child", but as I previously stated, adoption centers or foster care homes are common. Is it better to kill your child, or let them live with someone else?

And no, the fetus' rights should not overrule those of the woman. The woman should take into consideration all of her options, and think about what she is doing before instantly deciding to abort.

Finally, about the fetus not being living, I have five words: "Ouch, my baby kicked me!

2. In the case of rape, then yes, you are correct. It is the not father/mother's fault for getting pregnant. In the case of incest, both family members mutually decided on what they were doing (if not, look under rape), so it is still their fault for pregnancy. If they are worried about the baby being born with medical issues, and do not want them to face the pains of teasing and bullying, and want to put him/her out of his/her misery, then fine. Kill them so they don't get bullied and commit suicide when they grow up. Oh, wait. That seems pointless. And who knows, the child may not even be affected by teasing, and turn it into a conversation topic or laugh at themselves or such.

I am unsure of what is meant by health issues. If you are referring to the issues being with the baby, look under incest. It is the same point. If you mean a health issue caused the mother to give birth for no reason, then that is very rare, only occurring once in history (Jesus), and the child may be special. If you are referring to health issues that cause the mother to be unable to take care of the child, look under rape (as putting the child up for adoption is much better than not giving him/her the chance to live).

3. I am astounded with the analogy that you used, as it is completely off topic, but I will come to that later. As I have been preaching the entire round, sending the child to an adoption center is better than killing them. The child is not at all dependent on the mother if another female, adult character is willing to take care and look after the child. This is the case in the children's book "Horton Hatches the Egg". If you are not familiar with the plot, a bird leaves her egg with a friend (an elephant) for years, and Horton is completely willing to take care of the egg. Because of his determination, the egg successfully hatches and the baby lives with Horton happily ever after. The point I am trying to get across is that the mother is not necessary, as long as there is a mother figure around.

And now about the analogy. You have compared an abortion to not saving a man drowning outside of your boat. You say the person in the boat is not obligated to save someone else. The mother is not obligated to save their child. Two things, the mother would not be "saving" the child by letting him/her live. She would only be allowing its life. So unless someone pushed the drowning man off of the boat to kill him, abortion has no comparison to your analogy.

5. Thank you for your quick response last round, next time I will strive to be better. Good luck next round!
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by 7_Seven_7 3 years ago
In response to your second comment, Bernabei, I do quite enjoy sharing my view on a variety of topics and listening to the view of others. That is what I find fun.

It's not like I said, "Let's have some abortions! C'mon, kids, it'll be fun!" I don't appreciate you twisting my words.
Posted by 7_Seven_7 3 years ago
@Bernabei Ah, perhaps we should debate this topic.

1. There is no "correlation" between abortions and rape, pedophilia, or murder - unless you are referring to reasons that people have abortions, of course. I assure you that my opponent made that analogy, which I find quite ridiculous.

2. By insisting that an abortion is murder, are you not playing Judge in the matter of whether a fetus is a living thing or not? We just happen to come to different conclusions. Don't chastise me for something you yourself are guilty of.

3. There are many things that people should have the right to do that I don't personally believe they should practice (I.e., spewing idiotic ideas). This is not a question of what you believe to be morally correct but whether or not everyone should be held to those beliefs, legally.
Posted by Bernabei 3 years ago
And I almost forgot. You know what I find disguisting? Your description of the argument.
"I will argue that abortion should be legal while con argues that abortion should be illegal. Thank you in advance for accepting, and let's have a fun debate." - 7_Seven_7

How the hell would anyone have fun arguing abortion? Is this a laughable or event capable of having fun to you? Talk about a nihilist.
Posted by Bernabei 3 years ago
Maybe I should have taken on this debate. This is a morally motivated argument because that is the sole reason it might become legal or made illegal. The government has the "right" to do something assumes morality already.

The abortion analogy is not an analogy at all. It is a direct correlation. Abortions are literal murders because they are the unjustified taking of a life. Now you would probably say it isn't alive yet, in which case, you have made yourself the judge of what is alive, and what is not. Making an argument with you, impossible.
Posted by 7_Seven_7 3 years ago
For the record, I find the analogy between abortion (closing a door to a potential of life) and rape/pedophilia/literal murder to be quite disgusting.
Posted by 7_Seven_7 3 years ago
@Bernabei I find the exact opposite to be true.

Simply because something is legal does not mean that a person should or has to do it.

If we were debating whether someone should or should not have an abortion, personally, that would become a morally motivated argument, whereas this is more about whether the government has the right to tell someone they cannot.
Posted by Bernabei 3 years ago
I think a better question is: "Should people have abortions". 7 Seven, you seem to be constructing a moral argument without a moral standard or foundation. This is impossible. Should it be legal is like saying should it be allowed. What decides the morality of this question? I see abortion as murder, that is, the unjustified killing of a thing, namely, a human. You cannot know justice without already knowing what injustice is.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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