Con ~ Round 1

my opening argument is that abortion should be illegal because your killing an innocent person. So when u think about it your committing murder. abortion sould not be a choice b/c it was there fault for having unprotected sex

Pro ~ Round 1

I assume we are debating weather Abortion should be legal or not.

Although I agree with my opponent, I'm in the mood to debate and will play the devil's advocate. I'm going to define 1 term here.

Dictionary.com defines abortion as: The removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.

My opponent stated that abortion is killing a person; he has yet to demonstrate how an embryo or a fetus is a person.

However, for the sake of an interesting debate, I will concede this contention and agree with my opponent that an embryo, as well as a fetus is a complete, full fledged person, with 100% human rights. Now I will show you how abortion should still be permissible.

The person inside the mother may have 100% percent human rights; however, the fetus is in a state of leeching off the mother's body without the mother's permission.
If I needed a bone marrow transplant and only one other person on the entire planet had a perfect bone marrow match, and I needed her bone marrow to save my life, do I have the right to forcibly take her bone marrow? Of course not! The same thing applies to a fetus, even though the fetus is a person, it does not have the right to leech off other people's nutrients without their permission.

Possible objections to my argument:

Objection#1) the analogy is flawed because the mother caused the fetus to be in a state of dependence to begin with, therefore the mother is obligated to give nutrients she can spare to the fetus.

Rebuttle#1) it may be true that the mother caused the fetus to be in a state of dependence, but had the mother not caused the fetus to be dependent on her, the fetus would have never existed in the first place. Objection number 1 would work if I caused damage to someone and because of that damage, that person needed a bone marrow transplant, then he would have the right to take my bone marrow without my permission, however this is not the case with abortion, the mother caused no damage to the fetus, in fact, she did just the opposite, she brought the fetus into a state of being, from non-existence.

If a doctor performs an operation that saves a persons life, and because of that operation, the person will need a bone marrow transplant in 5 years, can the patient now force the doctor to give up his bone marrow without the doctors permission? Of course not! It's about damage, not causality. The doctor had causality of dependence on his patient, yet he is still not obligated to donate his bone marrow. Likewise, the Doctor did not have damage on his hands, and therefore he is exempt from giving up his bone marrow to his patient.

The same reasoning applies for abortion. The mother has causality of dependence on the fetus, but she did not have damage. In fact, she did just the opposite of damage to the fetus, she brought it into being. Therefore objection #1 does not give the fetus the right to forcibly take nutrients from the mother's body without the permission of the mother, anymore than the patient has the right to forcibly take nutrients from the doctor in the case listed above.

Objection # 2) Your analogy is flawed. Abortion cuts up little babies; it doesn't just take them out of the womb to sever the nutrients from the mother. It directly attacks the fetus that is dependent.

Rebuttal #2) This is somewhat true. Some forms of abortion specifically target the fetus, rather than just severing the umbilical cord. I will concede the point that these forms of abortions are wrong. However, not all forms of abortions do that. Many abortions simply cut the umbilical cord, thus severing the flow of nutrients from the mother to child, until the child suffocates. Other forms deliver the baby prematurely fully intact. These forms of abortion are supported by my analogies, and thus, should be permissible.

Objection#3) But the mother agreed to have sex! Thus she agrees to take full responsibility of the consequences of her actions. And if having a baby that is dependent on her body is one of the consequences, so be it!

Rebuttal #3) Imagine a hypothetical scenario if you will: There is a park, notoriously filled with criminals. These criminals have one special objective: to kidnap women and force them to undergo a bone marrow transplant operation. If a woman knows this can happen, and still chooses to take a walk in that park, does that make it right for the criminals to force her to donate nutrients from her body? Just like sex, the woman knew the possible consequences of her actions; she knew the risks of walking in that park. However, that does not make it right for another person to forcibly /use her body any way he wishes. Remember, the fetus is a 100% person after all 


So there's some food for thought, devil's advocate, signing off!

Con ~ Round 2

This round was forfeited because the debater did not post their argument within the allotted time.

Pro ~ Round 2

Extend my arguments...I guess....Come on wwb371. This whole forfeiting thing is really not cool.....

Con ~ Round 3

This round was forfeited because the debater did not post their argument within the allotted time.

Pro ~ Round 3

Straight forfeits...yuck.


The minimum character limit has to go. I have nothing more to say yet this site forces me to say more...