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

Should abortion be made illegal?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 683 times Debate No: 83904
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Hol"o"caust: noun; destruction or slaughter on a mass scale. Most people know of the Jewish Holocaust. Run by Adolf Hitler, the fascist leader of Germany, six million Jewish people were murdered in concentration camps or ghettos. But, most people don"t know about the modern-day holocaust happening here in the United States. What is the holocaust, you may ask? It"s one word- abortion. Abortion is the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. We like to say that the "fetus" is not human but look at the definition. The word "human" is right in it. We use that term like an excuse. Abortion needs to be made illegal because it"s murdering millions of babies.
First, we need to understand that a "fetus", is a human being. We"re going to stop using that term and use baby instead. To do this, you need to understand the stages of development in the womb. At five weeks, the baby"s heart forms and begins to pump blood. How can you say it"s not a living being when its heart is beating? At ten weeks, the baby"s brain, kidneys, intestines, and liver are developing. Then at twelve weeks, the brain is sending out brain waves. We have a living being whose heart is beating and brain is sending out brain waves but people argue that it"s not human? Please explain to me how that works when there is scientific evidence that it"s human.
Second, let"s picture a toddler. A little girl with cute pigtails and a cute little pink dress.
"Do you think she is a human being?"
"Well, yes."
"Do you think she has the right to live?"
"Well, if you believe that, do you think its okay to murder her?"
"No, absolutely not."
"If it"s not okay to kill her, then why do you think it is okay to kill a baby that"s only a year or two younger than her that"s in a mother"s womb?"
It"s not justifiable. This is an actual conversation that I had with someone and they realized there is no way to say what I was saying was wrong. If you think a two year old deserves to live, then why do you believe a baby who is only two years younger doesn"t?
Finally, abortion has taken the lives of 53 million babies. We are killing our future rocket scientists, the doctor who could find the cure to cancer, the president who will find an end to terrorism, the girl to be the first woman to play in Major League Baseball, and so on. Our future Martin Luther Kings, Abraham Lincolns, Fredrick Douglas, and Gandhi"s, all people who fought for equal rights, are now gone because a mother didn"t look at all her options first and thought death was the only way to solve her problems. Abortion is murder, plain and simple. And if murder is so frowned upon in our society, then why is this horrendous act allowed? Why do we think its okay to rip a baby from the warmth of their mother"s womb? Explain that to me.


C1) "The Violinist"

"Judith Jarvis Thomson is an American moral philosopher and metaphysician". She is most famous for her 1971 essay "A Defense of Abortion" Within this essay is the following thought experiment.

"You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." (3)

The right to life does not equal the right to use another person"s body. No such right exists morally or otherwise.

It would seem absurd that the famous violinist would have a right to my body. Likewise, with a fetus. While abortion may not be a desired action, the right of a fetus to life does not take away the right of a women to her own body.

Essentially my case is this. Does a woman have an absolute right to determine what happens in and to her body? Yes! She does. It is moral to retain the right to your own body. Though short, I believe this case to be convincing.

Due to the moral right to determine what happens to one"s own body, I affirm that Abortion is morally acceptable.
Debate Round No. 1


This is an essay from a fellow pro-lifer. She takes the words right from my mouth if you want to look the legal side of it.
Here are three legal reasons why abortion should be banned:

1) Murder is illegal.

Murder is the "unlawful killing of a human being" with some level of intent. California law includes "a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature."
The only thing preventing abortion from being included in the definition of murder is that it"s currently not "unlawful." But basic science proves that an unborn child is a "human being." No mention of "personhood" is necessary for basic murder definitions. Killing a "human being" or a "fellow creature," even, is enough.

Why, as a society, do we pick and choose human beings whom we can deliberately kill? These human beings are fully human, entirely innocent, and helpless and voiceless. Yet we purposely target them, setting very few restrictions on their killings.

Is there any other class of human beings that our society will make it "lawful" to kill? Belgium is already on the path to extending legal murder through its legalization of euthanasia " even child euthanasia. History shows that Nazi Germany, once it began to legalize the murder of human beings, simply continued down the path " the elderly, the sick, the disabled, gypsies, homosexuals, the Jews, those who defended the Jews. Where would it have stopped?

This is why abortion must be illegal if murder is illegal. It should never be "lawful" to kill any innocent human being.

2) The 14th Amendment was designed to protect classes of people like the unborn.

At the time the 14th Amendment was adopted, abortion was already illegal or being made illegal throughout the nation.

The criminalization of abortion accelerated during the 1860s, and by 1900 it was generally considered a felony in every state.
Thus, there was no reason for Congress to specifically discuss the unborn in their debate on the 14th Amendment. The unborn were already a protected class in the U.S.

However, during the debate on the 14th Amendment, Senate Sponsor Jacob Howard explained that it was essential for every man (or human being) to be equal in regard to the basic right to life:

I urge the amendment for the enforcement of these essential provisions of your Constitution, divine in their justice, sublime in their humanity, which declare that all men are equal in the rights of life and liberty before the majesty of American law.
Senator Howard also stated:

It establishes equality before the law, and it gives to the humblest, the poorest, the most despised of the race the same rights and the same protection before the law as it gives to the most powerful, the most wealthy, or the most haughty.
House sponsor John Bingham further explained the intent when he argued, as Robert C. Cetrulo writes, that "the Amendment was intended to be "universal" and to apply to "any human being." Fourteenth Amendment rights were intended not only to "pertain to American citizenship but also to common humanity.""

3) Federal laws already protect the unborn.

Justice requires our laws to be consistent.

The law on the death penalty and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act are prime examples.

Federal law prohibits the death penalty for pregnant women until they give birth. (18 U.S.C.A. S.3596) In essence, the law declared that an innocent unborn person cannot be sentenced and put to death for a crime he did not commit. If the unborn child were not seen as a person in the eyes of the law, there would be no need for this prohibition.

Common law typically prohibited the execution of a pregnant woman until birth, though its prohibition was not even as strong as the current federal law. The U.S. Supreme Court (in Union P. R. Co. v. Botsford) explained the purpose of the common law doctrine: "to guard against the taking of the life of an unborn child for the crime of the mother." Inconsistently, the Court calls the unborn child a "child" and yet refuses to recognize her as a person.
It"s wrong for a mother to have the right to kill her children. True feminists realize that our power doesn"t come through the blood of our children.
The UVVA specifically prohibits the killing of unborn children, defining them as follows: " a child in utero, and the term "child in utero" or "child, who is in utero" means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.
And yet, even with this powerful definition, the law makes exceptions for mothers to give permission for their children to be killed.

How contradictory, tragic, and wrong.


Pro completely ignores my argument and merely states that abortion if illegal would be synonymous with murder. This is not the case. Unless my opponent can negate my contention it is clear that abortion should remain legal.
Debate Round No. 2


I will acknowledge your argument. It is not the women's choice. If she chooses to end her child's life, she is now a murder. The baby inside her womb is a separate human being. That baby inside of her has its own beating heart and working brain. At nine to ten weeks, a baby's fingerprints have already formed. Their own unique finger and toe prints that separate them from other humans. Therefore, it is not the mother's body and not her choice to end her child's life.


The right to life does not equal the right to use another person's body. No such right exists morally or otherwise.

More importantly, pro has not linked the two whatsoever.

It would seem absurd that the famous violinist would have a right to my body. Likewise, with a fetus. While abortion may not be a desired action, the right of a fetus to life does not take away the right of a women to her own body.

It is moral to retain the right to your own body. Though short, I believe this case to be convincing.
Debate Round No. 3


rachburg16 forfeited this round.


kasmic forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


rachburg16 forfeited this round.


kasmic forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by rachburg16 2 years ago
Jonbonbon, I am not using it for shock effect. Abortion technically fits under the definition of a holocaust.
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Alright I think that abortion is inherently wrong, but using the word holocaust just for shock effect is wrong on so many levels.
No votes have been placed for this debate.