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

We should be pro-choice

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 2/9/2021 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 528 times Debate No: 127150
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




I go into this debate intent on demonstrating the truthfulness of two contentions

Even if we concede the vast majority of abortions to be immoral; all elective abortions must remain legal.

All elective abortions are morally justifiable therefore no abortion should be illegal.

Let"s focus on Contention 1 but first let"s address the pro-life side"s greatest argument. The argument from personhood and the right to life.

I"d like to make a distinction between terms that will prove fundamental to any dialogue on the nature of personhood and I"ll start with a concession. I recognize that the unborn are persons. Fetal personhood is as much reality as the fact that they are genetically human. What I question is whether personhood is enough to justify the pro-life side. I say it is not and base that claim on the fact that personhood is merely a necessary but not a sufficient condition for pro-life ethics. The definitions of the terms are as follows:

Necessary conditions: That which must be present for X to exist (Example: Being part of the Bird species is a necessary condition for an animal to be a chicken)

Sufficient conditions: That which isn"t just necessary but in of itself can bring about X (Example: The last puzzle piece in a nearly completed puzzle isn"t just necessary to complete the puzzle but in of itself will bring about the completion of the puzzle and is thus sufficient for X)

So why would I question that personhood is not sufficient for procuring a right to life? I base that questioning on the reality that such would result in moral inconsistencies and all sorts of logical absurdities. Here are two examples.

If the right to life as derived from personhood is sufficient for allowing individuals access to the body of others then mandatory organ donation of those who are still alive would not just be morally permissible but morally required and should be imposed by virtue of public law. Yet we would never impose such an idea because the individual dignity and bodily security of others are not automatically negated when someone"s life is at stake.

There are aspects that are fundamental to the nature of personhood. For example, Some have said that sentience is that trait that gives beings personhood. I tend to rest my case with the universal trait of humans being human and tend to make no effort in distinguishing between the two. Of course, That isn"t relevant but here"s what is. One operating on the line of a slippery slope could propose that a fundamental aspect of human nature is sexual intimacy. In fact, Such an idea is not entirely foreign to philosophical inquiry throughout human history. The inability of humans to reproduce with other animals is often one piece of the criteria used to separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom alongside other markers of differentiation such as the complexity of human rationality or the ensoulment of human bodies. Yet if we were to accept this line of thinking then we could justify rape. A person by virtue of their personhood would have a right to use the sexual property of another person. Of course, No one in their right mind would adopt such a view.

The rejection of both tenants demonstrates that personhood is not sufficient in determining whether one human can claim the use of another"s body as the pro-lifers believe the unborn are justly permitted in doing.

So what would be sufficient in determining the mother to be both morally and legally obligated to carry the unborn to term? I believe that the drunk driver analogy shows us. What makes drunk driving immoral? Is it drinking? Is it driving? Nope. What makes drunk driving immoral is that an individual as a result of consensual actions even if unintentionally could or would put an innocent individual in a state of vulnerability. This reality is where we derive that the driver must face punishment for their actions. So how can we apply this to pregnancy? Presupposing for the sake of argument that the unborn are persons, A woman (and by extension a man as well) who via consensual sex even if without intention conceives of a child has placed this child in a state of vulnerability and thus the mother is morally obligated (which should be enforced by public law) to care for the child until it is no longer in a state of vulnerability or she can pass this responsibility onto someone else (Fostercare/adoption alternatives). This would and is the only sufficient condition that I can think of for conceiving the vast majority of abortions to be immoral.

However, We know that not all conceptions are the result of consensual sex. Rape remains in existence no matter how rare it may be. Now you might jump up and so "Aha! You believe there should be an exception for abortion when a woman is raped. Great, Why does that make you a pro-choice supporter? " and my response is that the issue is not so simple. Indeed in some perfect world I could see the "pro-life with an exception for rape" as a tenable position, In fact in a perfect world there"d be no rape but we don"t deal with fantasy except to beef up our reasoning skills. The fact is that rape remains and the accompanying fact is that women who are raped are often unable to prove that they"ve been raped and if they can it"s certainly not within 9 months of the event occurring. Yet a fully consistent policy of "pro-life with an exception for rape" would demand that a woman have to prove that she was a victim of rape prior to being permitted to gain a legal and morally justifiable abortion. From the realities observed this would create a great injustice and thus to avoid this the woman must not be forced to prove that she"s been raped in her efforts to gain an abortion but that means then that all abortions must remain legally available to her discretion. This remains in spite of the regrettable reality that many women who are not morally justified in their efforts will abuse the system.

Of course that all presupposes that these women aren"t morally justified and contention 2 seeks to show that they are. Imagine, If you will, A utopian society. This society is powered by magic energy. Now imagine that the energy originates from the screams of a little girl being tortured. The question we must ask is whether this utopian society would be justified in continuing to exist off of the experiences of the little girl. Virtually all of us would say no and we"d base our answer on the recognition that the dignity and value of the little girl and the rights that accompany her are not negated by the same for the individuals who occupy the society either in their capacities as individuals or as a collective. To put it another way, The little girl carries no moral obligation to go through extreme pain in the interests of others and has the rest to alleviate herself of it. This imperfect analogy is applicable to pregnant women. We know that pregnancy particularly the process of giving birth is exceptionally painful so much so that a woman"s vision often tunnels and her sense of the external world is greatly restricted if not temporarily cut off. The woman facing this level of pain like the little girl in our thought experiment evidentially possesses a moral right to alleviate herself of said pain by any and all means at her disposal. Abortion being one of those means is therefore morally justifiable in all instances of use and thus should not be illegal in any instance.

Therefore we should be Pro-Choice.


I completely agree with your statement regarding immoral abortions, However we have to stop right there. While women do not get to decide whether or not an unborn child has the right to have a chance at life, We have to look at the circumstances as well as the point of views. Don't forget to add in the heartbeat factor. I will break this up into three points. (I am Pro-Life depending on the situation. )

1. If a women is in a situation where she cannot provide and care for the child appropriately then by all means she has the right to do what she feels need be done, Even if it results to abortion. Now if she were to choose abortion then I personally agree that she should do it before the fetus develops a heartbeat. I as a women, Would not ever give my child to a family that I know of only for who they portray themselves to be and being a child that grew up in foster care I would also never give my child to foster care. There are many things that could go wrong with giving a child to people who can be masking themselves as good citizens and foster care is a broken system where there are endless possibilities of to what could go wrong. Granted yes that could still happen with the mother if she had chosen not to abort the baby but it still would give the baby a fighting chance where as being adopted and put in foster from birth is risky and unexpected. There are also rape and mental capacity issues when it comes to women having children. Yes the women have no right to take a child's for being conceived by a rapist as it is not there fault in any way, Shape, Fashion or form. At the end of the day there are many things that could affect the women during her pregnancy when unprepared, Raped as well as not having the right mentality for having a child. The women or child even could result to committing suicide for feeling disgusting and dirty and others around her could put her down for being trash and make her think that being raped is her fault or having a pregnancy before marriage makes her a disgrace.

2. We have to try to understand the risks and factors of conceiving children. Every person in this world unborn or not has the right to get a chance at life to an extent. Women and children could die together during a pregnancy, Or maybe just the baby or the mother. Children are also born with defects that would make it hard for them to live life as a normal child and not be stuck in a wheelchair or paralyzed or braindead etc, Etc. Women also face the possibility of death when giving birth as well as the fetus. It is hard to wrap your head around it at first but try to understand that there are many factors to be considered with the birth of a child.

3. Recognizing that the child has a heartbeat it would be inhuman to take a creature's life with a beating heart. I think if a woman is going to have an abortion it should be done at the appropriate time in an appropriate manner. You are probably questioning why can't abortion just be illegal, And the baby is still a person etc, Etc. Before the fetus develops a heartbeat it is merely an embryo. A small ball of cells. Yes, It is a human. However look at the embryo like an egg, Before it is fertilized it is just a ball of cells, While eating the yolk and membrane to survive. A embryo is a ball of cells in the process of becoming a human. It is not yet a human but in the process therefore the embryo would feel no pain and would not technically be a human through the process of the abortion.

So my point is abortion should have legally set rules, The fetus cannot have a heartbeat making it an embryo. You must have a extremely validated reason as to why you want to have an abortion. To put the cherry on top you cannot walk into an abortion clinic and simply request an abortion. There should be a process, It should be looked at and examined appropriately by a non-biased jury.

I hope you understand my point of view and your opinion changes so you can understand what i'm trying to portray.
Debate Round No. 1


It seems that all three of your points seem to support my conclusion that abortion is moral and should be legal. In your concluding paragraph, You said and I quote "You must have a extremely validated reason as to why you want to have an abortion. " and I would say that the argument from pain that I've given seems sufficient enough a justification for abortion at all stages of pregnancy.


Granted in a sense I am agreeing with you, However I would like to come to a halt with the morality of abortions. When it comes to abortion I have and will always agree with the fact that it is immoral and unjustifiable to an extent. Either way we go about it, It's still wrong to take a child's life, Heartbeat or not it is still a human in the process. I understand your point of view and I respect, On the other I completely disagree with your belief that all abortions are moral when they are not. No matter how much pain (physically speaking) the woman has throughout her pregnancy she cannot take the child's life after it has developed a heartbeat. My opinion on abortions and the morality of them is that no matter the circumstance taking an unborn child's life is wrong either way but I can support the reasons as to why it has to happen. I disagree with your point of all abortions are moral. All abortions are in fact immoral and wrong but I think we should be Pro-Choice per circumstances.
Debate Round No. 2


What about a heartbeat removes the mother's right to alleviate or avoid the pain she is either experiencing in pregnancy or that she can foresee herself experiencing when she goes into labour. Being alive or having a beating heart doesn't mean that someone is entitled to another body. If so then mandatory organ donation from the living should be implemented or worse the woman who kills her rapist or domestic violator must be penalized because the attacker was alive/had a heartbeat and was only trying to cause her pain. The attempts to argue against the pain argument force us to some really dark moral conclusions elsewhere. I say the argument stands.


Okay, While I would like to respect your opinion as much as possible I do not I can further this argument without doing so. I was hoping that you would catch on to the fact that you have contradicted yourself about five times already and are going completely of track to make a invalid argument as you have no real stability in your argument. The heartbeat ties the knot with the understanding that it is now a creature WITH A HEARTBEAT SIR. You are not comprehending that the child is now no longer in the process of becoming human it is now officially a human being. I really wanted to prevent myself from belittling you but I feel I can no longer refrain myself from doing so. Rape is not rare and it is very common so please do not throw that up in your explanation because, One the way you are using your explanation of rape is invalid and let me say absolutely retarded because you have continuously contradicted yourself, Gone completely off track and thrown in topics useable for completely different arguments.

1. There is no such thing as a mandatory organ donation, Do your research before you attempt to argue an ACTUAL validated argument.

2. The child is incapable on inflicting purposeful pain on the mother as they have never had an actual thought. I believe you should forfeit this argument because you have no chance at winning all of your "points" because you have simply contradicted yourself beyond belief. Please refrain from making ignorant statements from here on out. Thank you kindly.
Debate Round No. 3


Yeah, I think this debate should end. I've clearly won. The fact that the unborn are humans or have heartbeats is not sufficient enough to negate mother's right to alleviate or avoid the pain she is either experiencing in pregnancy or that she can foresee herself experiencing when she goes into labour. Being alive or having a beating heart doesn't mean that someone is entitled to another body.

When you claim there is no such thing as mandatory organ donation what do you mean? Do you mean to say that it would be impossible to legally mandate that if a living person is found to be the match of someone in need of an organ than they must give it? That's silly.

On purposeful inflicting of pain. So what? Say that a drunk driver accidentally hit me while I was walking would they still not face penalization, Would I still not deserve compensation of some sort? Most importantly would I still not possess a moral right to alleviate myself of pain? Of course, I would and therefore it's silly to suggest that the unborn not purposely inflicting pain is somehow a defeater for the argument from pain. The argument stands and with it the implications.


I really hate to break your heart but you have contradicted yourself beyond belief and I can no longer see why you are intent on debating this topic. A human life is a human life regardless of what you want to believe. I completely agreed with the fact of an abortion before the heartbeat. However I do not agree with your ignorance on a human's life. Please refrain from using the drunk driver analogy because we are talking about abortion not D. U. I. Also if a drunk driver hit you while you were walking you would presumably be dead, You would be given compensation regarding the accident if you had lived but it would not be by taking that person's life to "alleviate your pain" as you like to say. How would you be able to alleviate yourself of said pain if the accident has already happened? By killing yourself or demanding the death of the other person? There are lots of holes in your argument that need to be filled. I personally believe you are incompetent on doing so. I do not understand how you could say that a person fitting the match of someone in need of an organ transplant should be required to do so. . . That makes no sense whatsoever. If someone has cystic fibrosis and they are in need of a lung transplant and some healthy person fits the criteria for that person to have their lungs are you saying then that person who has the healthy lungs is required to give them to the person with cystic fibrosis? If so sir then your way of thinking is completely absurd. I am very interested in how you think you have won this debate with a fools knowledge. Therefore you argument does not stand because you have no stability for your debate, Your argument falls with it's incomprehension.
Debate Round No. 4


You had me rolling on the floor with this. You are more than correct that human life is human life. The question and one which remains unanswered by you is whether someone being alive is sufficient enough to A) give them nonconsensual access to another person's body (that's where the organ donation comparison comes from) and B) if that remains the case even if the nonconsenting individual will have to undergo extraordinary pain as a result of this arrangement.

When it comes to the drunk driver's analogy I'm tempted to say that you just don't get it. It's comparable to abortion in this sense. The only thing that makes abortion wrong if it is indeed the case that it's wrong is a situation where a couple through consensual actions unintentionally gives rise to life. These individuals have through their actions put a child in a state of vulnerability and thus they have an obligation to care for the child until they can offload that responsibility. Same with the drunk driver. By running someone over they've gained an obligation to that person of some sort by placing them in a state of vulnerability. Whether that obligation is fulfilled by sitting in jail or paying them money who knows and who cares. The point is what I've delivered. You're just so focused on being condescending that you fail to see the logic of the position.

On the infected lung example you gave and the question behind it. If we go with your logic then yes they should. Why? Cause according to pro-lifers life triumphs over everything else and so yes forcing a living person to donate their organs to someone else in need is not out of the picture. Follow the logic to its fullest conclusions or don't weigh in on the discussion.

I win this debate because the argument from pain remains unanswered, The argument from exception continues to stand, And you clearly don't understand the implications of your own views.


I apologize that your failure to understand logic had you rolling on the floor with confusion. I know I am correct that a human life is a human life. If a woman becomes pregnant by herself without being forced it is therefore her responsibility to accept motherhood because the said fetus did not choose to be conceived. If the woman is incapable of taking car of the fetus then again I support abortion before the heartbeat and the same goes with rape handsdown. Your organ donation comparison is indeed invalid because we are once again not talking about if a organ donation should be mandatory we are talking about abortion and those sir are to different topics. Again hate to break your heart. If the nonconsenting individual decides to have an abortion before there is a heart beat then I would gladly hold her hand and pay for the abortion myself. When it comes to the drunk driver analogy I am tempted to say you just don't get it. It is incomparable to abortion in no sense. Everything about abortion is wrong but I am willing to accept it given certain circumstances. Thank you for acknowledging the fact that a couple who accidently conceive a child have no right to abort said child. However it is not the same with the drunk driver analogy, Yes that person gains an obligation to said person that was run over. Whether that obligation is fulfilled by sitting in jail or paying them money is valid and people do know and people do care. The point is that you have delivered even a sliver of a point. I am no in any way, Shape, Fashion or form claiming superiority so please do not put words in my mouth or assume things of which you do not know of. I believe you, Sir are failing to see the logic of the position.
Along with the infected lung example, A person does not have to give their life up for another person. You are once again contradicting yourself by saying that a person doesn't have to give their life up for another person because you are pro-choice which means you are all for taking another humans life so another can live and be the way they want to be. I have never seen one pro-life supporter claim that we must take another humans life to give another human life. They represent the exact opposite. You sir need to follow the logic to its fullest conclusions or don't weigh in on the discussion. You have lost this debate because I debunked your argument for pain since round two. You are currently running on your ego and pride and have put all passion regarding this debate aside. Instead of arguing for your people as a whole you are arguing for yourself. Meaning you no longer are qualified to argue for such a wide opinionated debate. I completely understand the implications of my views as I am arguing for myself and for others with logic and not as dull-witted boy who is intent on using big words and long sentences to appear intelligent for which sir you are not. I can end this debate knowing full well I will win and that I am happy to have debated with such an ignorant person because it simply made this a lot easier. Thank you for your time and the free win. I hope you will wise up one day and realize that you are not as smart as you would like to think you are. -KK
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by 17designer 5 months ago
adolfmosley, You are not funny,
Posted by AdolfMosley 5 months ago

We refused to elect a towel head monkey, What makes you think we would elect a monkey without a towel on his head.

Also, Alberta is one of the most racist and conservative provinces. They don"t take well to abortion and especially when it"s thrown at them by a no good fake Christian black monkey man

Go back to trying to become the treasurer of your local church youth group, Neg*o maybe they"ll take a token neg*o like you there if you keep trying.

2031 election? It"s a no for me
Posted by 17designer 5 months ago
ah, Primeministerjoshua has returned.
Posted by primeministerJoshua812 5 months ago

Not all murders are wrong
Posted by AdolfMosley 5 months ago
abortion is murder you dumb monkey man neg*o
Posted by John_C_1812_II 5 months ago
Are Pregnancy Abortions elective? A woman is given a choice to receive a medical treatment that is not an admission to murder. All people lose privacy when the term pregnancy abortion is used to describe a treatment not just women.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mangani 4 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 was yet another horrible debate. Pro presented nonsensical arguments, but Con immediately conceded the main point: essentially, that a woman has the right to choose abortion. There is nothing else to debate once this point is conceded as doing so is completely antithetical to Con's position. Conduct, spelling, and use of sources was equal all around. Still, this was a horrible debate. Pro wins by virtue of Con conceding the entire position.

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