Instigator / Pro
7
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#3916
Abortion is Murder
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
15
Better sources
4
10
Better legibility
3
5
Better conduct
0
5
After 5 votes and with 28 points ahead, the winner is...
Intelligence_06
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
35
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#1
Thank you Intelligence_06 for excepting my debate.
First before I start my argument, I would like to know your position on these questions.
- 1) At what point, do you think the cut off point be for abortion?
- 2) What reason that should be the cut point?
Abortion is murder
The bottom line is, that abortion is murder. And I want to cover the most popular questions on why abortion is murder. For example "The fetus doesn't feel pain until about 20 weeks into the pregnancy, so therefore is it right to kill the baby?" or "Isn't that controlling woman's bodies if we take away that right for abortion?" etc. But why is abortion murder. Here is the short, googled, description of murder.
mur·der
noun
plural noun: murders
- the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Pro-abortionists believe that babies aren't living things. And therefore, they can't feel the pain when aborted. So for it to be murder it has to be with ending another life and or human life. But a lot of people don't believe that the baby is intrinsically valuable until a certain point or just until out of the womb. I believe, and I know, that the moment the baby is conceived, the baby is intrinsically valuable.
I'm a big believer when it comes to facts don't care about your opinion and or feelings. Facts don't care about your feelings.
I am going to provide you with science and fact. I'm going to give you some quotes, scientifically stating, and proving that the moment a baby is conceived, it is living. Here is an article that backed up my claim.
Here is a link to the article so that you can read it yourself. I'm going to be quoting this article along with my argument.
"Some people point out that the sperm and egg are alive. Indeed, life, in a broad sense, is continuous (stretching back to the beginning of life on Earth). So it's not accurate, they claim, to say that life "begins" at conception.
It's true that life in general is continuous, but the life of an individual human being is not continuous. It has a beginning and an end. The beginning is called conception. " Although life is a continuous process," explains the textbook Human Embryology & Teratology, "fertilization … is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed." "
This quote from the article straight up explains that the fetus, from conception, the fetus is a living being. I was going to use this article to support my claims, but this new one is better. https://evolutionnews.org/2022/05/if-a-fetus-isnt-a-human-being-what-is-it/
Definition of Murder:
Once again the definition of murder is to end other living life. So what makes the fetus a living human being? Or the main question, when does life begin? Here is a quote from the article of things that make the fetus from the moment of conception, a human living being.
"Consider the scientific implications of each option:
1) The fetus is a part of the mother’s body. if the fetus is a part of the mother’s body, then all pregnant women are chromosomal mosaics. That is, they are organisms that have two sets of genomes. Chromosome mosaicism is a rare disorder and is not synonymous with pregnancy. There is no such thing as “transient chromosomal mosaicism.” Furthermore, if the fetus is a part of the mother’s body, then half of pregnant women are hermaphrodites — i.e., they contain both male and female tissues. Needless to say, “transient gestational hermaphroditism” is not a recognized medical disorder.
Furthermore, if a new human life begins by a piece of the mother’s body becoming a new organism, then human beings reproduce by budding. Budding is a form of asexual reproduction used by some species of worms, sponges, corals, and microorganisms, but it is not a means of human reproduction.
There is no biological sense to be made of the claim that “the fetus is part of the mother’s body.” The claim leads to scientific implications that are nonsense.
2) The fetus is not part of the mother’s body but is an individual of another species. If the fetus is an individual member of another species, then pregnancy is by far the most common parasitic disease among humans. What’s more, the transition in each pregnancy from a non-human parasite to a new human being is speciation — the evolution of a new species, “Homo fetus” to Homo sapiens — occurring with each pregnancy. This is, of course, scientific nonsense.
3) The fetus is not any kind of living thing — it’s just a clump of biological molecules undergoing chemical reactions. If the fetus is not really living at all, then each pregnancy is a new origin-of-life event. This is also scientific nonsense. "
This also fights against the argument that it is a woman's body and and woman choice. It is not the choice of a woman to decide the fate of a fetus, being that it is not apart of the woman's body.
Con
#2
1. On Definitions
Just a heads up, "Opp" used in this argument majorly describes my opponent, who is Pro, as opposed to the "Opposition party" which is me.
Murder
One issue with Opp's definition is that for the term "Murder", opp used two distinct definitions; not only that, the two are at war with each other.
mur·dernounplural noun: murders
Definition of Murder:Once again the definition of murder is to end other living life.
Not only that, what weakens the Pro argument even more is that neither of those took link from any existent online websters, despite the first entry shown above appears to be taken from one. By sifting the first page of the results on cn.bing.com, I am unable to locate the exact definition of that entry, but it is nevertheless still plausible that several other that serves the contextual role can be brought up here(as a noun, obviously)
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethoughtThe killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.murder, in criminal law, the unjustified killing of one person by another, usually distinguished from the crime of manslaughter by the element of malice aforethought.
By these three reputable sources, the first entry brought upon by Opp is basically to be agreed upon. In order for something to be categorized as murder, it must:
- Involve the killing of a human individual, especially by another human individual
- Be unjustified
- Be Unlawful
- Involve malice aforethought
- Malice Aforethought means:
- The intention to commit a crime without just cause or provocation, particularly in cases involving first-degree murder.
I support the notion of using the first entry brought up by Opp or any of the three presented above.
Abortion
Pro has neither set any restrictions on abortions(for example, limit it only to human abortions) nor gave any clear definitions of the term from any reputable sources.
From Merriam-Webster:
1: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: such asa: spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation compare MISCARRIAGEb: induced expulsion of a human fetusc: expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy compare CONTAGIOUS ABORTION
BoP
Obviously, without further descriptions, the BoP on the two parties are that:
- Pro's job is to prove the topic to be correct
- Con's job is to prove the topic to be incorrect
Since Pro labeled no restrictions neither in the description section nor in the topic itself, the topic can be interpreted as:
For any possible case that can be described as "abortion", said case(s) must also be able to be described as murder
Therefore, if there is at least one definite instance in which a case described by "abortion" cannot be suitably described as "murder", the topic is proven to be incorrect.
2. Nonhumans
Definition 1C of "Abortion" as given clearly includes abortions done by domestic animals. Domestic animals include dogs, cattle, sheep, etc. The definition does not include humans, according to National Geographic. Since the definition of murder limits the eligible victim to a human, the contagious abortions performed by these animals should not count as murder regardless if their embryos or fetuses are considered alive or not.
3. Malice Aforethought
Entry 1B may fit the description of malice aforethought if the fetus is already a person(which, will not be discussed explicitly in this section). However, according to entry 1A of Merriam-Webster, miscarriages do in fact count as abortions. What are miscarriages? Spontaneous explosions, which are not premeditated or intentional.
4. Unlawful
In numerous states, abortion is legal, therefore not unlawful. Therefore, in these locations, abortion is not murder.
Conclusion
- Abortion:
- in states where abortion is legal;
- in domestic animals;
- in miscarriages;
- Indeed count as abortions but none of them are murder,
- Therefore, the topic statement is proven to be false, vote CON.
I rest my case.
Round 2
Con
#4
Extend:
Conclusion
- Abortion:
- in states where abortion is legal;
- in domestic animals;
- in miscarriages;
- Indeed count as abortions but none of them are murder,
- Therefore, the topic statement is proven to be false, vote CON.
Round 3
Con
#6
Extend:
Conclusion
- Abortion:
- in states where abortion is legal;
- in domestic animals;
- in miscarriages;
- Indeed count as abortions but none of them are murder,
- Therefore, the topic statement is proven to be false, vote CON.
Round 4
Con
#8
Just realized I forgot to give the source for "Abortion".
1
a
b
: induced expulsion of a human fetus
c
: expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy compare CONTAGIOUS ABORTION
Extend.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro is saying God is guilty of murder through miscarriages. Con refutes this plus Pro forfeits.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
I was swayed by Con's argument. He provided a logical explanation why abortion and murder are not the same thing. Clearly, if abortion isn't illegal, it can't be murder by definition alone. Con, imo, provided higher quality and quantity of unbiased sources to earn Source points. I see no clear difference in spelling or grammar between the participants. Pro forfeited thus Con gets conduct.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Forfeiture.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Forfeiture.
Agreed! This debate is worthy. I think I may attack this debate on the pro side one of these days.
You missed a round, but can still recover. Intelligence is a damned fine debater, but there's still a contest to be had if you still believe abortion to be murder.
Yea, pro-life kinda messed up. Shoulda added more definitions.
I'm glad a pro-life folk can finally elaborate on his positions...
This is a perfect example of why having definitions in the description is important - very impressed by your strategy.
These so called "pro-life" protesters never protest outside the veterinary clinic against cat abortions, and cats > people, therefore if it's about life they really should be more vested in preventing cat abortions than human abortions...
I agree entirely with you.
Abortion will need to be well defined at the outset. Some consider miscarriage an abortion. Also in order to have a murder there must be a death of a life, so when life begins needs to be defined.
I agree with pro 100%.