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

should abortion be legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 12/21/2017 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,229 times Debate No: 106040
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)



Abortion should be illegal and I can give a few reasons. one, if you were the baby that was killed from abortion, how would you feel if you were that baby? There are just so many innocent babies that have been murdered because of abortion. Abortion is simply unfair to a baby.
Another reason abortion should be illegal is because doctors have to live with PTSD. Doctors every day who don't believe in abortion have to kill innocent babies and often suffer from PTSD. It is not fair to make doctors kill innocent babies that they don't want to kill.
By making abortion illegal, no more doctors will suffer from PTSD, and no more innocent babies will be killed. Abortion is a harm to babies with absolutely no benefits. For these reasons, abortion should be illegal.


I accept the debate and wish my opponent good luck.

Contention 1: The Constitutional Battle

Many opponents to abortion constantly argue that Abortion is unconstitutional. This is completely far from fact. Abortion, in it of itself, is Constiutional. The first is that it protects the right to privacy. This is important as it shows that you own your body [1]. When we extend this all across the issues we can see that this can be extended to other key areas making sure the law has to protect your privacy. This includes things like limiting just how far the TSA can search at air ports. Another is preention of organ harvesting by the government. Unlike China, the US is not able to simply harvest the organs of prisoners nor the dead without their consent. Why is this you may ask? This is simply due to the fact that the individual owns their body. If you take that away, then you open up a whole new area the government can do that they haven't been able to do before. All of which are immoral acts. Roe V Wade, was a great decission for limiting the government.

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to thejurisdiction thereof, are citizens of theUnitedStates and of the State whereinthey reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge theprivilegesorimmunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any Statedeprive any person of life, liberty, or property, withoutdueprocess of law; nordeny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
US Constitution, 14th Amendment

A lot of people site the Constitution for the "Right to Life," but the Constiutional fact is that, you have to be born in the United States in order for these rights to apply to you. So even though it may or may not be alive, it is not considered a US citizen, hence have Constitutional rights, until they are born, not at conception.

Contention 2: Abortion reduces Crime

In the 1980s, crime was increasing and many people were fearing that the 90s would be a mega crime decade, but that never happened. Many people tend to site Gun control or many other factors, but the real solution was abortion. Crime, all across the board, began to fall. The reason is that all of the unwanted babbies that would be born into poverty and would turn to crime were never born. Welfare, crime, drug use, and a long list of other criminal activities fell because of this [2]. Homocide, and property crimes had fallen by 30% which had been at the lowest rates since the end of the end of the Prohibition. We also need to look at a lot of the factors that play into this. In this research they found that a lot of the women that would have had abortion, their children would engage in illegal activities harming soceity [5]. Studies by University of California found that 76% of the women who are turned away from abortion are likely to become unemployed, on welfare, compared to the 40% that have abortions [6]. 30% is a huge difference. They are also more likely to stay with their abusive partner leading to a higher amount of domestic violence. This is something that no one, men, women, or children, have to be forced to live through. Making abortion illegal will cause these harmful things to occur by forcing a women to have an unwanted child.

The Colorado Department of Health and Environment stated that, "unintended pregnancies are associated with birth defects, low birth weight, maternal depression, increased risk of child abuse, lower educational attainment, delayed entry into prenatal care, a high risk of physical violence during pregnancy, and reduced rates of breastfeeding.[3]"

On top of this, the CDC reports that 49% of all pregnancies are unintended [4]. We can see that by making abortion illegal, we can see that we would be severly harming the mother as well as leading to harm for the child which would harm there lives leading to much of the life of crime that would have had not occured. A child that is not wanted and one that would cause massive harm as well as dettremental effects to soceity should not have to be born into this world as it would simply just cause everyone pain.


As for my opponent's first argument, I wouldn't feel anything as I wouldn't exist. It's pretty simple as that. If you are a doctor, you can refuse to give an abortion, so no harms my opponent bring up would actually occur [7].

1. (
2. (
3. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, "Family Planning Program," (accessed Apr. 21, 2014)
4. (
5. John J. Donohue, and Steven D. Levitt, "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 2001 (Despite admitting to an error in one of this study's tables, Levitt has stated that "the story we put forth in the paper is not materially changed by the coding error." See Steven D. Levitt, "Everything in Freakonomics Is Wrong!,", Nov. 28, 2005)
6. Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), University of California at San Francisco, "Turnaway Study," (accessed Apr. 22, 2014)
7. (
Debate Round No. 1


I going to first look at my arguments and prove their validity and then look at my opponents arguments. Lets start with the one about innocent babies being murdered. Lets put yourself in the babies situation for a second. If you are the baby about to be aborted whether you can feel it or not, it is still murder. Even if the baby didn't care, you can never justify murder on an innocent child. And how many people would grow up and look back at the situation and think, "Oh I wish I had been aborted as a baby." No one wishes that.
Another argument I previously had was doctors suffer from PTSD. This is still a valid argument. True, no one is forcing the doctors to abort a baby. But someone has to do the job. If all of the doctors all of the sudden refused to abort a baby, there will be no one to do the job.
Another argument that I have is that according to it causes psychological damage to the person who gives birth to the baby.
One of the arguments that my opponent brought up is that it protects the right of privacy in that they own their own body. This is invalid because the baby does not make the decision to be aborted. It is being murdered without a choice. If it does not have a choice and the baby is innocent, that is murder.
I think one of the greatest values in life is protecting the innocent. Abortion is doing just the opposite. If you don't want to have a baby, then don't have a baby. If this happened then you would never have to do abortion in the first place, and cause all of these doctors to have PTSD.
The other argument that my opponent had was it reduces crime. If someone has a baby and knows they can't support it, then they can send it to a family that is able to support. So this way, the baby can be raised properly and can be taught how to grow up and make good decisions. Because a lot of people decide to keep their baby, and raise it unproperly, the child can grow up and commit crimes due to not be raised properly.
In conclusion abortion should be illegal. Whether the baby feels it or not, it is still murder. Because murder is a violation of human rights, it causes PTSD for doctors, and should therefore be illegal.


I'd like to thank my opponent for such a speedy reply. I shall go over my opponent's R2 arguments in the order he has presented them in.

Even if I was aborted, wouldn't have felt anything as I wouldn't have existed here in this world. My opponent has yet to try and prove that abortion is murder or that the fetus is considered to be alive at that point. With that, my opponent's argument here is negated. In regards to the wishing for abortion, that is an Appeal to Emotion Logical Fallacy, please through this argument out. I would like my opponent to please cite his url source in regards to the psychological harm. Until then, please through this argument out of the debate as it does not have any factual backing in the realm of this debate. The choice of the unborn is irrelivant in this case. They are unable to make the decission as the Federal Government rules children, who have already been born, do not have the level of rational thinking for some time. Even in this case, there is nothing in which the fetus can do to respond to any options here.

Not sure why my opponent is having an issue with the refusal. Some doctors do chose to perform abortions, but if no one wanted to do it then abortions would plumet. Isn't this what my opponent would want in this case?

My opponent has yet to bring up stats on adoption. The proof shows that those who were not aborted and unwanted, which includes those put up for adoptions, caused crime to increase substantially. Until my opponent brings up evidence in the contrary, you have to flow this argument to my side of the debate.

My opponent has yet to prove that the fetus is alive or that it is murder. He drops several arguments involving the crime rates and the Right to Privacy. His argument in PTSD works in my favor. With that, my opponent has no arguments left on his side.

With that, I thank you and urge a ballot in Negation to the resolution.
Debate Round No. 2


Before I start I would also like to thank my opponent for a speedy reply.
I want to take a step back a minute and look at the argument of abortion as a whole. What is it asking? In particular doctors. My opponent mentioned that if no one wanted to do the job of abortion, abortion rates would plummet. But, if you go to the websites of, and, they both say that the reason abortion rates don't plummet is because doctors jobs are on the line. If you go to the websites, they both say that if doctors are in utter refusal to do an abortion then they will lose their job. According to doctors make about 200,000 dollars a year on average. They don't want that amazing salary to disappear for refusing abortion. Doctors then later have PTSD according to PTSD then can lead to depression and sometimes suicide.
Now lets move to my opponents argument about abortion not being murder. My opponent said that abortion is not murder because the child does not know it. This is like saying that if you steal from someone and they don't they have been stolen from then it is not stealing. It doesn't make sense to say that murdering a child is not murder because the child doesn't know it. Murder is murder no matter what, and murder is wrong. Especially when it is against an innocent child. A child, even if not born has a right to live, no matter what.
My opponent mentioned that I used an ad misericundium fallacy. Also known as appeal to emotion. Lets start by defining that fallacy. This fallacy is when you make someone feel a certain emotion in order to persuade them to do something. For example if you were trying to persuade someone to go to the movies with you and you said, "If you don't go to to the movies with me I will be so sad." That would be a fallacy. In this situation if I used an appeal to emotion, I would have made the person I was trying to persuade feel an emotion in order to convince them. I said that most kids don't wish they had been aborted as a child, because they are having a good life. This has no correlation whatsoever to an appeal to emotion. I am simply stating a benefit by not killing the child as a baby and letting him or her live a good life. By killing a child, you are taking away his or her chance to benefit or contribute to society in any way.
Now lets talk about abortion reducing crime. By opponent said that in the 1990's crime rates decreased because non aborted kids would sometimes be born into poverty. But however according to the website abortion became legal in 1973. I find it strange that crime rates would start decreasing 20 years later and not in 1973. Plus, according to, crime rate increased in 1980. These studies show that abortion could not have been the reason crime rate decreased in 1990 in the US.
Now about the adoption part of it. If a person truly does not want their baby, then they can send it to adoption. According to, about half of the 150,000 kids put up for adoption are adopted. Thats a lot of adopted children. And thats each year. A kid is most likely not going to spend more than 2 years waiting to be adopted. Some will of course, most get adopted fairly quickly and go to a good family and have a good life. Don't you think that is a better option than just killing the baby. At least you give it a chance to live. This can go back to the crime part of it. Even if abortion was the reason crime rate went down, and abortion became illegal, we can still keep the crime rate down by sending these kids to the adoption center, and get a good family and live a good life. Rather than not care for them, and have them grow up and be on drugs, and commit crimes. So because there is a possible solution that can come into play, my opponent cannot promise you this benefit on crime rate decrease.
Another reason abortion should be illegal is because it increases the chance of breast cancer according to 15 percent of women who commit abortion have breast cancer. And given the fact that 1/3 of women have an abortion, the number of breast cancer cases is a lot. This study was shown by NBC news.
Another reason abortion should be illegal is because children who feel abortion experience pain. This study was shown by Do we really want these poor innocent babies to experience pain? We shouldn't. By taking away abortion you take away a babies pain. It is as simple as that.
My last argument is that babies are alive and are technically US citizens by law. All US citizens have a right to live. Abortion is killing a US citizen. Therefore, abortion is taking away that babies right to live. It is never right to take away someone's right. According to if you are alive even before birth, and you are in the US, then you are a US citizen. So, I believe that abortion is unconstitutional.
In conclusion abortion should be illegal. It gives PTSD, sometimes causes cancer, gives psychological harm to the parent, causes depression and sometimes suicide, is unconstitutional, and is a true murder. Think about it, abortion may seem right for the parent, but is it right for the baby?
I would like to thank my opponent for a great debate about this topic, and I urge the judges to vote against abortion.


I would like to thank my opponent for the debate as it comes to a close.

My opponent brings up these sources urls, but they don't really take you to the exact source of where these things are said. I could simply say CNN says thing A and say it's found at, but this doesn't help too much in this debate. So, unfortunately for my opponent, we have to through those out the window.

PTSD can lead to these things, but we have to remember that they have the right to refuse. The Doctors for Life International has shown that it is possible and these doctors have a constitutional right to refuse service of abortions [1]. Their jobs may be on the line, but the US Department of Equal Oppertunities has stated that people, these doctors included, cannot be fired due to these reasons [2]. In this debate, my opponent has yet to prove that the fetus is alive or that it is murder to begin with. With that, we have to see that my opponent's case has no standing here in which my opponent has yet to do. This portion alone warrents a victory, but I shall continue for the sake of the debate.

The statistic numbers is quite simple, these individuals weren't adults until that time period. That's a 20 year time period, so people who were forced to be born before Roe V Wade were becomming an adult and entering into the world's work force. People even thought it would be the crime decade, highest of all time, but it wasn't [3]. This in the case negates the adoption option as it shows as these options were available before Roe V Wade, the crime numbers were up despite the issue has come up.

My opponent has not demonstrated that they expierence any pain, so throw that out of the debate. I have previously shown and this point was dropped in the debate by my opponent in the last round, that these babies are not alive, nor US citizens via the Constitution, so it would not apply to them. The cancer portion was brought up with no factual backing, so please throw it out of the debate.

With that we can see that Abortion is an issue of Privacy for the women, my opponent has dropped this argument. It has also reduced crime by preventing unwanted children in the world, showing that they would've had it better under abortion than to suffer in this world. My opponent's arguments of PTSD and doctors flows in my favor as they have the right to refuse service and cannot be fired. Even if they all refuse the right to service, abortion would drop to 0 resulting in what my opponent would want without an outright ban.

With that, I thank you and urge you to vote Pro!

1. (
2. (
3. John J. Donohue, and Steven D. Levitt, "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 2001 (Despite admitting to an error in one of this study's tables, Levitt has stated that "the story we put forth in the paper is not materially changed by the coding error." See Steven D. Levitt, "Everything in Freakonomics Is Wrong!,", Nov. 28, 2005)
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Debating_Horse 3 years ago
Abortion is fine in the cases of life endangerment, me for rape? I agree a small percent. But abortion because the mother no longer wants the baby? Absolutely not.
Posted by kasmic 3 years ago
Con also argued PTSD to doctors. This contention went nowhere. Pro sufficiently shows that doctors do not have to perform these abortions and con does not substantiate the claim. Thus it is negated.

Later in the debate con claims a right to life for the fetus. This was already addressed by pro in his opening argument. "A lot of people site the Constitution for the "Right to Life," but the Constitutional fact is that, you have to be born in the United States in order for these rights to apply to you."

Overall I don"t find either sides argument convincing. I vote for pro as at the end of the debate I have a right of self-ownership and privacy along with reduction in crime if abortion is legal weighed against unfair to the fetus for con.
Posted by kasmic 3 years ago
I found this debate underwhelming. The resolution is "Abortion should be legal." (I presume in the U.S?)

Pro offers two main arguments. First he goes over the constitutional argument. On its face it appears to me to be an is/ought fallacy. Basically it seems like the argument is that abortion should be legal because it is constitutional. How is this different from saying "it should be legal because it is legal?" Fortunately for pro he does include part of the reasoning as to why it was upheld as legal. That is, a right to privacy which he loosely connects to the more impactful claim i.e. self-ownership. So far as I can tell Con never really addresses this concern rather the argument is made that the unfairness to the aborted outweighs this consideration.

The second contention from pro is that abortion reduces crime. While I find this argument unconvincing myself I again do not really see that con does enough to negate the argument. It seems a truism to suggest that to make something illegal that is commonly done will increase crime. To give pro credit his argument does rely on that observation as he cites poverty and unwanted children leading to crime. This is cited and linked to the topic.

Con offers two main contentions as well. First that an abortion is murder and unfair to the baby. Pro responds by saying that the baby does not feel anything. I am not sure how this actually responds to the argument made. Do I have to feel to be killed or treated unfairly? Con articulates this in his final round. Pro claims that the argument is negated as con has not proven that the fetus is alive. This is not a sufficient response either. Pro does not demonstrate that it is not living. It seems to me common knowledge that a fetus is alive in some sense or at least that an abortion prevents a full realization of life. Thus, I don"t think the burden of proving the fetus alive a necessary aspect to cons case. That stated it would not have been hard to show.
Posted by wagwan_pifffting 3 years ago
if i was a baby who was aborted i wouldnt feel anything because i would be friking dead. Excuse my language.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by kasmic 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: In comments

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