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

Should abortion be safe, legal, and rare?

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: 1/31/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 400 times Debate No: 107354
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




I am pro for last resort choice, not just for abortion. Debate me.


Thanks for the challenge. I accept this debate and will argue from the side which opposes the abortion. Pro may go with her arguments first.
Let's have a fun and civil debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Right. Let me begin by saying religiously, I believe that life befins at conception, but politically, when two human lives are coinnected, choice should exist in moderation. I have several neurological problems, and while I personally had my tubes removed for birth control, one cannot ever support forced sterilization. That would be eugenics. What if the mother's life is in danger, the mother was raped, the mother is a partner abuse victim? There are too many what ifs to abolish abortion, but let's talk safe sex ed, free birth control, single payer healthcare, and more. Let's create a culture of life while saving last resort choice for women or girls that need it. No one likes abortion, but many accept that sometimes a woman or girl needs one. I have talked to two women, who are alive because they aborted an ectopice pregnancy. Abolishing abortion will kill women.


First, abortion is a murderous act which involves purposely killing a human being in the womb. The innocent life of a human being, who has the right to live and grow is forcibly put to an end without his/her consent. And abortion is illegal in many countries, except under a few conditions.

    • In case of unwanted pregnancy due to rape or abuse, we need to realize that killing an innocent child in the womb does nothing to recover the life of the victim. It might even endanger the mother's health. There are legal ways to deal with such problems which don't involve killing an innocent baby. It's morally unacceptable to harm someone's life just because you've received tragedy from another one.

    • In case of health risk to the mother, well, it still depends on how much the pregnancy is endangering the mother's life. Just as the mother has the right to survive, so does the baby.

"Let's talk safe sex ed, free birth control, single payer healthcare...."

Not sure how they are relevant to the case of abortion.

Debate Round No. 2


I was raped when I was 22. If I has conceived something, would you force me to give birth only to be forced to coparent with my rapist? I would have had the right to choose. Let's step it up: I have neorological problems that would have made the pregnancy very traumatic for me. Doesn't my life matter? When two lives connect, some choice has to exist, or we have forced organ donation.


We are all humans, and I'd like to point out that morality is one of a few things which separates us from other beings. Every critical decision for our lives should be judged and guided by the moral standpoint.

As I have suggested, there are alternatives to prevent unwanted pregnancy and they don't limit to sterilization. A rape victim can use Emergency Contraceptive Pills (ECPs) or IUD devices [1] after the rape to keep herself from getting pregnant. These methods are not only effective but also acceptable from legal and moral perspectives since no life is harmed.

"I have neorological problems that would have made the pregnancy very traumatic for me. Doesn't my life matter? When two lives connect, some choice has to exist...".

One's own personal problem shouldn't be an excuse to harm someone's life. There are multiple ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy and failure to do so is not the fault of the child. Yes, the mother's life matters but so does the baby's. No one wants his/her life to be terminated because of the personal problems from someone else. It's morally wrong.

"If I has conceived something, would you force me to give birth only to be forced to coparent with my rapist?"

I think this is the legal issue specific to some US states and not representative of all rape cases across countries. So, obviously, it's the problem of the legislation of parental rights in those states, and not the problem of pregnancy. And from what I've found [2], 43 states in the US have legislation to prevent rape victims from facing their rapists. And in the majority of the states, the parental rights of the attacker can be legally terminated if he's convicted of rape.

Debate Round No. 3


I don't think it is moral to abolish abortion because difficult cases require difficult choices. Women will die if abortion is abolished. I have intercranial hypertension plus a shunt in my head and belly, plus 5 mental illnesses. Preganancy would be fatal, and I have the right to live.


As I've mentioned, there are several birth control methods for a woman to avoid unwanted pregnancy, which is the cause of abortion. So killing an unborn child, and claiming it as a last resort choice just because she has failed to try these methods is simply unreasonable.

Morality doesn't depend on how difficult a situation is, but rather it depends on choosing what's right. And when there are two humans, they both have the right to live.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ConserativeDemocrat 3 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate really came down to the mechanics of debate: Who is advocating changing the status quo? In this case, Con is arguing for the banning of abortion, the change in the squo. Thus, Con will need to prove to me that banning abortion will have benefits outweighing the squo's positives. Con argues banning abortion will save human lives, but the flaw in this argument is that Con assumes a fetus is a human being, which they never prove, so I can't give Con this argument, as they haven't shown that banning abortion will save lives. Furthermore, Pro makes the point that banning abortion will lead to women facing health risks as a result of their pregnancy, and Pro's only argument to counter that is "Use birth control", which is irrelevant if a woman is already pregnant. All in all, since Pro showed that changing the status quo will harm women's health, and Con has no advantages to changing the status quo, I vote Pro.

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