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

is abortion ok

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/7/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,368 times Debate No: 54205
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




I will start by debunking the most common arguments against abortion:

Reason rebutted 1. Life begins at conception. There are many things wrong with this. One, an infant born the day after conception will not survive, no chance. Two, the qualifications for life are reproduction, adaption, growth, and homeostasis (maintaining stable body conditions) though an infant can grow, sure it can grow. Conversely, an early born or unborn infant cannot maintain homeostasis on it's own. It needs to be in a womb or in an incubator, even in an incubator the infant will have unstable vital signs. Adaption, very limited adaption as implied by the homeostasis issue. Finally, reproduction, we should not not be silly an infant or fetus cannot reproduce, especially a female.

Reason rebutted 2. It is murder is the killing (taking of one's life) another person or life form taking of one's life implies that the person must be alive.

Reason rebutted 3. It is unconstitutional (because of life liberty and the pursuit happiness [emphasis on life]) the other ones, liberty and the pursuit of happiness say that a person may do whatever they choose in the pursuit of happiness.

Reason rebutted 4. Is against the bible. The bible does not talk about abortion.

Reason rebutted 5. Adoption is a thing. Yes but if the parents don't tell them early it could be mentally scaring, also if they do not get adopted, they will go into the foster system or an orphanage, not sure which of those two is worth.

Reason rebutted 6. We need to protect the innocent. If you are conservative against gun control and if you are also against abortion because we need to protect the innocent. If so why are you against gun control, 85% or more of gun death in america are innocent children.

I will now make arguments for abortion:

Argument 1. Rape. If a woman is raped and gets pregnant, she should not have to bear that child as a constant reminder of that tragedy. Furthermore, sometimes the rapist will come back for custody or visitation rights.

Argument 2. Medical reasons, fetuses have stem cells which are cells that can grow into anything, the healing possibilities are endless.

Argument 3. Quality of life, if someone is homeless or too poor the child and the parents will have terrible quality of life.

Argument 4. Death. Sometimes birth will kill the parent, therefore, the birth should be avoided.

Argument 5. Disease. If the kid has a disease which would cause painful death, the birth should be avoided.


I accept this debate, and I hope that we can come to an understanding of the fundamentals of the questions about abortion.

It is important to note that the true question here is are the unborn human because if they are not then they don't get human rights and abortion should be legal, but if they are human then they deserve the human right to life like every other human.

I will address the first two points at the end. First I will address Reason rebutted 3 that abortion is unconstitutional. Well I would like to point out that the phrase "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" isn't in the Constitution but rather it is in the Declaration of Independence [1], so this isn't even a valid reason to rebuttal. Further, the issue of violating law was brought up in reason rebutted 2 about murder.

Now to reason rebutted 4, abortion is not ok because it is against the bible. My opponent claims the bible doesn't talk about abortion. Although, the bible does not use the word abortion, but it does address our fundamental question "are the unborn human?" and it makes it clear in Exodus 21:22-23 where it states "If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life," NIV [2]. There is also a reference to the unborn in Psalm 139:16 where it talks about seeing an unformed body. However, not all people are Christians, and I would like to present a secular case.

"Reason rebutted 5. Adoption is a thing". My opponent claims adoption is bad because it could be mentally scaring. True, it could be, but it also could be a creative situation too instead of a destructive. At least adoption offers a chance for the person to have a life, while abortion will make sure there is no chance for them. To address the orphanage issue "
In 2002, there were 18.5 million women ages 18-44 who had ever considered adoption. This number amounted to approximately one-third (33.1 percent) of all American women..." [3], so there is certainly enough people out there considering adoption to adopt all the children.

The next reason rebutted is 6 that we need to protect the innocent. This is only true if the unborn are human, so this will bring us back to our base question "are the unborn human?"

Reason rebutted 1 Life begins at conception. First, my opponent claims since the early life can't survive outside of the womb makes in not a life. survive means "continue to live or exist, especially in spite of danger or hardship." [7], and using the word survive implies it is a life. I also would like to point out that by definition "an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense" [4] is a parasite, and all parasites won't survive outside of the host, but that doesn't make them any less living. Second, my opponent challenges the unborns' qualifications of Homeostasis and reproduction. It is important to define homeostasis "The tendency of an organism or a cell to regulate its internal conditions, usually by a system of feedback controls, so as to stabilize health and functioning, regardless of the outside changing conditions" [5]. The unborn will try to achieve internal balance but it might be unstable, but the process of stabilization is homeostasis which is there just like it is in each of the living cells that make up the unborn. Also, I would like to note that my opponent does say the unborn in the womb could have unstable vital signs, and it is important to not vital signs are signs of life [6] which would be impossible if it were not living. Second, reproduction was also an issue. There must be an understanding that Humans cannot reproduce until sexual maturity which is known as puberty. The way my opponent applies reproduction then no person can be considered living until puberty because a three year old can't reproduce. However, when properly applied reproduction means it will eventually be able to reproduce asexually or sexually in it life time. With this proper understanding of what life it we can conclude that the unborn are living.

Reason rebutted 2 that abortion is murder. To be murdered the unborn must first be alive, which was confirmed in the last paragraph, and must be human which is what I will cover here. A zygote which is a fertilized egg "contains all of the genetic information (DNA) needed to become a baby" [8]. Undoubtedly this DNA is human DNA since it's initial components are two sets of human DNA, one from the mother and the other from the father. Since the unborn is living and contains human DNA, we must therefore conclude that the unborn are indeed living humans and deserve human rights, and denying the human right to life is murder.

Now to refute arguments for abortion that were presented.

Argument 1 is rape. Rape is indeed a terrible thing and the perpetrators should be severely punished, but is it right to give the death penalty the unborn for the crime of one of their parents? No, we should not deny the unborn their human rights. Let me ask this question should we allow the parent of a born human who was conceived in rape to kill their born child?

Argument 2. Fetal stem cells can be use for medical purposes. This is a rather repulsive argument since the extraction of fetal stem cells results in the death of the fetus. This is basically killing to harvest human parts. There are such things as Adult stem cells which don't require death for extraction.

Argument 3 Abortion should be allowed for low quality of life. First, if the parents could not afford a child they should not have taken actions that resulted in a child. Second, should parents be able to kill their born children because they can not afford to take care of them?

Argument 4 abortion could save the life of the parent. Medical technology has come a far way and giving birth is now relatively very safe. It also important to note that abortion is the intentional termination of the pregnancy. If a problem arises such as a cancerous uterus then actions should be taken to eliminate the medical problem and if it results in the death of the unborn then it is tragic, but it is not an abortion.

Argument 5 Kids should be aborted if they have a disease that causes a painful death. This is another quality of life issue, but should parents be allowed to kill their born children because they develop a disease that could lead to a painful death?

I hope my opponent will answer all questioned I posed, and I wish them good luck in the debate.


Debate Round No. 1


First off I would like to thank my opponent for taking my challenge.

For one thing, the only question here is not if unborn fetuses are human.

I will now rebut my opponent's rebuttals (for lack of arguments, just rebuttals):

Rebuttal to my opponents rebuttal 1 (constitutionality): Ok, first of all I was wrong about the constitution thing, though I do believe that part of the declaration of independence was the principals on which are nation was founded on ipso facto they are also in the constitution and the Articles of Confederation (no longer in use). Conversely, the preamble DOES say that we have the rights to liberty also to my point. Finally, my opponent offers only a citation of my reason rebutted 2 to rebut reason rebutted 3, that is counterproductive to his winning the debate.

Rebuttal to my opponents rebuttal 2 (murder): there was no rebuttal here (just pointing that out)

Rebuttal to my opponents rebuttal 3 (biblical cause): true it may say what my opponent says but the majority of abortions are from accidental pre-marital sex pregnancies, pre-marital sex is unforgivable in the bible (contradiction much). . Our nation is religiously free and our policy should reflect as such (amendments 1 and 14). My final rebuttal (to this point) is that god is in fact not or disliking of anything. "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love" (John 4:8). Therefore, if god hates or dislikes anything, then god is his own opposite.

Rebuttal to my opponents rebuttal 4: (adoption): Ok it only could cause scarring. With the orphanage I was saying that orphanages have a general trend of hinders brain development .

Rebuttal to my opponents rebuttal 5 :(protect the innocent): I agree that is a different argument

Rebuttal to my opponents rebuttal 6 (biological life): Depends on your opinion (duh) but fetuses as fetuses are biologically not alive.

Rebuttal to my opponents rebuttal 7 (murder): see Rebuttal to my opponents rebuttal 6. Murder is the taking of one's life. To deny someone something they must have yet to obtain it, I see all contradictions.

Rebuttal to my opponents rebuttal 8 (adult stem cells): fair enough argument, though fetal stem cells are convenient if available. Death first requires life and these adult stem cells are less plentiful and when unavailable they must be reverted.

Rebuttal to my opponents rebuttal 9 (Poor quality of life): So punishing them for a life mistake, that could in turn ruin their lives... interesting. My opponent used a spectrum argument, really. The spectrum argument is commonly used and irrelevant to the debate. A kid would not be born if they could not afford to care for it while it was unborn. Finally, not allowing abortion in this instance would be to punish a kid for his/her parents mistakes.

Rebuttal to my opponents rebuttal 10 (maternal health): got me there

Rebuttal to my opponents rebuttal 11: Another irrelevant spectrum argument. Also if a dog has a painful death causing disease, then it would be put down. To not give the same right of that to an unborn fetus, would be wrong. A fetus can only feel pain after 20 weeks most abortions occur in the first 3 months (12 weeks). My opponent is opposed to abortion because it could cause the fetus pain, but will allow a child to feel pain potentially all the life of the child until death. That is a contradiction my friend.

I will now put forth new arguments:

Argument 1 (round two): If fetuses are humans why are they called fetuses why not babies just like born fetuses.

Argument 2 (round two): (partial rebuttal to my opponent's rebuttal 6): My opponent argues that a fetus is alive when it needs to DEVELOP to fill the biological requirements. Therefore, my opponent himself contradicted himself again.

Argument 3 (round two): Pro-Choice. A woman's body, like a man's is to do with what she pleases. If she wants an abortion, who am I to stop her? I am Pro-Abortion because I believe it is ok, but I am not Pro-Abortion because I do not think all women should get abortions. I am Pro-Choice.

Argument 4 (round two): The world is getting close to overpopulation, at least in respect to the water supply, while abortion would help it would not help significantly, every bit counts.


I thank my opponent for their responses, but I do think there are some flaws in his arguments.

Firstly, I never said the only question is if unborn fetuses are human, but rather I said "true question here is are the unborn human", and I explained why this is true.

1. Constitutionality
If my opponent wants to make a constitutional argument then they should use the 14th amendment which states "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" [1]. This just proves murder is illegal, which I think we both agree is good that it is illegal, but this does nothing to the central question if the unborn are living humans.

2. Murder
Actually there was a rebuttal and you even responded to it. Which is why your point 7 is also named murder. I have given a sound argument that the unborn are living and my opponent dismissed it as opinion, more on this in point five.

3. The Bible
I though I asked to make a secular case. I will not use this argument since not all people accept Christian Morality, which is what I said in round 1.

4. Adoption
It is true that orphanages could hinder brain development, but death before birth hinders brain development much more.

5. Biological Life
It is not a matter of opinion. I used scientific evidence to support my claim, and claims can be true or false unlike opinions. Lets talk about zygotes. A zygote is "a cell that is formed when an egg and a sperm combine" [2]. This cell is living since it fits all the qualifications of life. However, my opponents claims when this cell multiplies in to a multicellular organism isn't living, but then becomes living. It is amazing to claim that cells that experience all the qualifications for life isn't living.

6. Adult Stem Cells
Once again this argument comes back to if the unborn are living, so I end this argument since it is not central to the question at hand whether abortion is OK, but rather it is a result because if abortion is ok then fetal stem cells are fine to use. However, if abortion is not OK then fetal stem cells are not fine to use.

7. Poor Quality of Life
I would like to ask why the spectrum argument is irrelevant to the debate? There is an interesting point that not allowing abortion punishes the kid. I would like to ask how not giving the death penalty to them is a punishment, and is terminating their life a reward?

8. Painful Death
Once again how is the spectrum argument irrelevant? Further, I never claimed I oppose abortion because the unborn feel pain. I actually oppose abortion because it kills an innocent living human being. To claim other wise in incorrect.

9. Use of the term fetus
Fetus is a descriptive word describing age like toddler, or elderly. "The end of the 10th week of pregnancy marks the end of the 'embryonic period' and the beginning of the 'fetal period'" [3]. At this point the unborn is now a fetus, a human fetus.

10. Need for development
My opponent claims that because the unborn need to develop to achieve reproduction then it is not living. According to this logic a three year old would not be living either since it also can't reproduce. However, I doubt anyone thinks a three year old is not living.

11. Body autonomy
A very common claim, but it is false. This is because the unborn has different DNA, and even possibly different blood types proves it is not her body that she is messing with but rather someone Else's.

12. Overpopulation
This is a very disturbing point. True, abortion will lower the population, but so will genocide. So, if overpopulation makes abortion ok then with the same reasoning it would make genocide ok.

I did not include Maternal Health, or Protection of the innocent because we agreed on those points.


Debate Round No. 2


For one thing I would like to finally reiterate how much I appreciate guidestone's acceptance of this challenge, he has been a very formidable opponent.

I will now rebut my opponent's rebuttals (for a 2nd time with no arguments):

un-numbered. An unborn fetus is and an unborn (both are referring to the unborn offspring of a human) are the same thing.

1. The 14th amendment may say this but also liberty, this could also mean that a restriction on abortion could violate this right.

2. If the contents of my point 6 and 7 were fact and not opinion, there would be no debate there

3. I agree to keep it secular but I still had to have a rebuttal or it would cost me

4. Yes, but at least they do not need to live through any mental scarring or getting ridiculed for their challenges

5. I also used scientific evidence and also, that could always be disputed it cannot maintain homeostasis on it's own, nor can it reproduce in a human way. Also you said yourself your argument (or lack there of) is if the unborn are human when in fact you claim that it is a zygote, not a human.

6. Ummmm that isn't even a rebuttal that is just saying what we all already knew, excluding of course the inaccuracy that this argument is not central to the debate.

7. Well, if the child is on the streets being too cold or too hot, always wondering where your next meal would come from. Would you like that? That is the poor quality of life argument is about. No it is not a reward, but if there will be an extremely poor quality of life, making them be born would be a punishment.

8. Would you like a drawn out, ten year life of pain only then ending in death, or would you rather not go through that. I never said you were against abortion because of painful death, no claim was made. The spectrum argument is irrelevant because the child, once born has a right to choose it's own fate and express it, (the and express it is the point there) if the child wants its life to end ,it should be given that right.

9. Ok, just because it may be a human fetus you are using the word fetus as a noun and the word human as an adjective. Fetus is a noun especially how you used it.

10. Back to the Spectrum argument, anyway that was ignoring the other qualifications for life, and actually yes a three year old girl, having never had a period, can still get pregnant and theoretically reproduce.

11. Ok while the baby has different DNA it gets parts of it from the mother and technically the baby develops from the woman's egg when fertilized and is (especially while in the womb) part of the woman's body [1 (this also says the zygote contains the DNA to BECOME a baby]).

12. Oh come on, that was something extra not a statement on anything else, can one thing just be independent room other things, just once, genocide is NOT ok.

I will now present my final argument:

1) If you disagree with abortion don't get an abortion, don't stop someone else, I am not forcing anyone to get an abortion, it should be the woman's choice.

Finally I request that you make an argument next round so here are a few pre-rebuttals:

1) The woman could get hurt in an abortion: this is literally a maternal health thing (if you do not use this argument in your final round I am not saying you think this.



This has been an interesting debate about abortion, and I hope we each gained insight into the other's position.

1. Constitutionality
It is important to note that there is no right to an abortion anywhere in the constitution, but there is an explicit right to life which can not be deprived without due process of law. Concluding, there is a right to life which must be protected.

2. Murder
My opponents' statements contain facts, but there was also incorrect information too. That wrong information was pointed out, and was dismissed as an opinion.

3. The Bible
Then this point should not have any influence on the winner of this debate.

4. Adoption
That is all stuff that COULD happen, but being adopted COULD benefit them by helping others find foster parents such as the case with Dave Thomas [1] the founder of Wendy's. "life offers no guarantees but abortion offers no chances".

5. Biological Life
My opponents' statements contain scientific evidence, but there was also incorrect information too. That wrong information was pointed out, and was never defended. The term zygote is also a reference to age like using the term toddler. To say you keep calling it a toddler not human, so a toddler isn't human, is a false way of thinking. Every time I mention zygote or fetus I am talking about Human zygotes and human fetuses.

6. Adult Stem Cells
It is true I did not rebuttal this un-sourced point, and it was because this point is irrelevant to the issue if abortion is ok just like saying we could mine the earth for coal, but that is irrelevant to is mining ok.

7. Poor Quality of Life
My opponent says "Well, if the child is on the streets being too cold or too hot, always wondering where your next meal would come from. Would you like that? That is the poor quality of life argument is about". Should people be allowed to end that child's life because of the poor quality of life? Of course not. Further, quality of life is temporary and can change, unlike abortion.

8. Painful Death
My opponent is defending mercy killings here; however, murder is still murder no matter what the intentions are. My opponent also said "I never said you were against abortion because of painful death, no claim was made.", but in round 2 they said "My opponent is opposed to abortion because it could cause the fetus pain", which was untrue. My opponent claims the spectrum argument is irrelevant because a child has the right to choose once they are born. There is two problems with this. One, the child is not at the age of consent, and therefore, cannot make big decisions. Every nation realizes this which is why every age of consent is well after birth. Two, my argument was comparing situations in which people choose for others such as killing an unborn due to poverty, and killing a born due to poverty. They both deal with living humans and is a valid argument.

9. Use of the term fetus
This whole debate is about human abortion, so it would only make sense that references would be about humans unless otherwise said. Just because it doesn't say human fetus ever time doesn't mean it isn't human. For example, take the word mother. Just because it doesn't say human mother doesn't make her not human.

10. Need for development
Once again the spectrum argument isn't irrelevant for reasons listed previously. No, a three-year old cannot reproduce which is why there are no three year old parents because they have not reached sexual maturity.

11. Body autonomy
My opponents has a strange claim here. They say since it is a fertilized egg of the woman that it is part of the woman's body, especially while it is in the womb. According to this even after birth it would still be considered part of the woman's body because it is still a fertilized egg, so should she be able to kill her born child because it is still her body? This raises the further question is it the mother's body or is it the mother's mother's, Grandmother's, body? Also, it is true a zygote will become a baby because a baby is "a very young child, especially one newly or recently born" [2]. Which is why when women are pregnant they say they are going to have a baby and not they have a baby.

12. Overpopulation
My opponent didn't defend his position here.

13. Don't like; Don't do it
This is a common argument in the abortion debate, but it doesn't work well. If you think this reasoning is valid then anything else that could be filled in there would be valid.
Such as
If you disagree with segregation don't segregate, don't stop someone else, I am not forcing anyone to segregate, it should be the person's choice.
If you disagree with gun ownership don't get an gun, don't stop someone else, I am not forcing anyone to get an gun, it should be the person's choice.
If you disagree with public nudity don't get nude in public, don't stop someone else, I am not forcing anyone to get nude in public, it should be the person's choice.

This would also work for gay marriage, polygamy, incest, dueling, euthanasia, cannibalism, suicide, prostitution, drugs, contraceptive use, alcohol, piracy, etc.

This concludes my arguments for why abortion is not ok. Hopefully, to all those reading this debate will see how my opponent failed to argue and defend the position that the unborn were not human or not living; therefore, the unborn are living humans and deserve the equal protection for the right to life.


Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by DeletedUser 7 years ago
The Bible should be irrelevant to legislative policy. Some people choosing to live their lives on the guidelines of the Bible don't have the right to make that law, because America is not a theocracy. (I am assuming that this debate is concerning the United States.) If the Bible says so, it doesn't mean it should be illegal.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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