Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
10
debates
35.0%
won
Topic
#3958
My view: Abortion Is Wrong. Con's view: Abortion Is Right
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
AustinL0926
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
2
1636
rating
33
debates
93.94%
won
Description
Abortion is wrong because it is murder. Abortion is the killing of unborn and in some cases newborn babies. Prove me incorrect.
Round 1
All I have to do is prove that abortion is the murder of a human and prove that the murder of a human is wrong.
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy as a means to discontinue the birth of a child. How is a pregnancy terminated? First, I will define the state of pregnancy.
The Oxford Dictionary definition of pregnant is: having a child or young developing in the uterus. Even the very definition of “pregnant” concludes that there is in fact a child in the womb. Yes, said child is still in development, but all humans are not fully developed until the age of 25. Regardless of not being born yet, all children still have around 24 years left of maturing. So, according to abortionists, when does/should age REALLY become a logical immunity from being legally killed?
Moving on, a pregnancy can be terminated by a dosage of pills. Some of these medications are known as mifepristone and misoprostol. These pills are used together for the effort of:
1) Stopping the pregnancy from growing.
2) Emptying the uterus with side effects of cramping and bleeding.
This will effectively cause a self-induced miscarriage. However, the term miscarriage must be used carefully because a miscarriage can only occur before the 20th week of development in the uterus as per the definition.
Another major pillar of my argument is: when does an embryo/fetus constitute as a child in the womb? 5th week? Halfway point? One hour before childbirth? According to 1*Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia 5th Edition, “At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun…”
Also, to further the credibility of my source, 2*"Since 1938, the Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia has enjoyed a reputation as one of the most important and comprehensive general scientific references available, suitable for both academic and professional environments.” Do not fret about this book source being outdated because it has had many updated editions since then with the latest being the 10th Edition from the late 2000s. From another source 3*https://www.epm.org/resources/2011/Apr/27/when-does-life-begin-quotes-many-sources/ there are several more medical textbooks that essentially agree on one thing: the zygote is the start of a new human being—the beginning of life. For there to be life, it can only be extinguished by death.
An embryo or fetus is well beyond in maturity from a zygote. Since the zygote is the mark of a new life, all progress afterwards is a continuation of a living human in its development. For a state of pregnancy to occur, the zygote must have already been developing into its next stages. So, anywhere along the line of the duration of a pregnancy, from the beginning of the zygote to childbirth, abortion is the killing of a human life. This young life holds the same weight as any person already outside of the womb.
Your turn, AustinL0926
Sources
1* [Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943. https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html#:~:text=At%20the%20moment%20the%20sperm,life%20has%20begun
I. Framework
1. Burden of Proof
The burden of proof falls squarely on my opponent, for two reasons. First of all, he is the instigator of the debate, and the one making the claim – by default, he has the burden of proving his claim. Second of all, he is making a controversial claim as well – that “abortion is wrong because it is murder.”
2. Winning conditions
The winning conditions are different for each side, as a result of this burden of proof. My opponent must provide convincing and sufficient evidence to prove his claim. I must refute my opponent’s evidence. Crucially, I do not have to prove the topic wrong – I only have to prove that my opponent has not proved it right.
3. Opponent's main claim
My opponent has, for all intents and purposes, proposed the following syllogism to support his argument:
P1. “Abortion is the murder of a human.”
P2. “Murder of a human is wrong.”
C1. “Abortion is wrong.”
Because a syllogism relies on a major and minor term, I only have to refute one. Obviously, nolo contendere on P2. I will instead focus on P1. If I refute P1, then my opponent’s entire argument (claims, evidence, and all) is null and void.
II. Definitions and interpretations
Because my opponent has not provided any definitions in his opening remarks or description, I, as the contender, should and will give proper definitions for the key terms – in particular, “abortion.”
1. Definition of abortion
According to Merriam-Webster [1], abortion is:
“a: spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation— compare MISCARRIAGE
b: induced expulsion of a human fetus”
2. Definition of murder
According to Merriam-Webster [2], “murder” is:
“a: to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice”
3. Definition of with malice aforethought (also known as premeditated malice)
According to Merriam-Webster [3], “with malice aforethought” is:
“used to describe a criminal act that was deliberately planned to cause harm to someone”
Now, with the definitions out of the way, let’s move on to rebuttals.
III. Rebuttals
My opponent claims that “abortion is murder.” This implicitly implies that all abortions are murder. Therefore, if I can show that not all abortions are murder, then my opponent’s claim, and argument is wrong.
In order to refute my opponent’s claim, I will use the following contrapositive statement, and reference the definitions provided earlier to support it.
P1. Murder must involve premeditated malice.
This is easily proved by the definitions I provided earlier, as well as any reputable legal source as well.
P2. Abortions do not involve premeditated malice.
The very first definition of abortion I provided defined it as, “a spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation – compare MISCARRIAGE”
Clearly, an accidental abortion cannot involve any malice aforethought – therefore, it cannot be murder.
C1. Abortions are not murder.
If both of the previous statements are true, then this statement must be true, through simple logic.
Therefore, I have refuted my opponent’s main argument – shifting the burden of proof squarely back to him.
IV. Advance Rebuttals
In this section, I will address possible arguments by my opponent in advance. Since I’ve based my case around definitions, I will assume that without attacking definitions, no progress can be made.
1. I only focused on the 1st definition of abortion.
I will counter this by showing why the first definition is more relevant to this debate. According to several peer-reviewed scientific studies, approximately 1 in 4 pregnancies end in a spontaneous abortion (also known as a miscarriage), and this is likely an underestimate, as many early abortions are undetected. [4][5]
In contrast, according to the CDC, just over 1% of pregnancies end in induced abortions. [6]
This shows that less than 4% of abortions are intentional, and as such, I have no need to address them – my opponent is welcome to pursue this course, but an exception does not prove the rule.
The definition I used has greater impact and importance, and should therefore be used.
2. The 2nd definition is in more common usage.
Although it’s true that colloquially, “abortion” generally refers to induced abortions, in medical literature, both historically and presently, “abortion” is often used to refer to spontaneous abortions.
In addition, the relative usage of a definition doesn’t make any one more correct than the other. As long as both definitions are sufficiently used to be included in reliable sources such as dictionaries, they are equally valid.
3. The context of the debate applies to the 2nd definition.
Whenever an instigator starts a debate, it is their responsibility to provide definitions in the description, and to require the contender to agree to these terms, if they want a certain definition to be used.
If the instigator does not provide a definition, then the contender is free to provide it. Furthermore, my definitions are fair: I didn’t cherry-pick the 1st definition. Instead, I provided both, and then demonstrated why the 1st one has greater impact on this debate.
Although neither party has to agree to the definitions provided by the other side, I remind voters, and my opponent, that the burden of proof is still on him.
V. Summary and Conclusion
In my opening speech, I have:
- Demonstrated my opponent did not provide crucial definitions
- Provided definitions of my own from a reliable source
- Showed how the 1st definition of abortion can never be considered murder
- Proved why the 1st definition of abortion should be used through accurate statistics
- Refuted my opponent’s contentions by showing he only used the 2nd definition of abortion, which only applies to a minority of cases
- Addressed potential definitional counterarguments in advance
I look forward to my opponent’s response.
VI. Sources
Round 2
Forfeited
E x t e n d .
Round 3
Forfeited
E
x
t
e
n
d
.
Round 4
Forfeited
E
x
t
e
n
d.
Also, who the heck reported this debate? lol
Round 5
Forfeited
My opponent's forfeits are forgiven - if you ever want to do the same topic again, with a better-defined resolution, I'd be up for it.
Meanwhile, vote CON!
Bumpskis
Apologies for the forfeits
Wrong and illegal are different. I think premarital sex without a vasectomy is wrong. I don’t believe it should be illegal though.
If the semantics is your main concern, why not create a new debate by challenging Austin directly and rally the court of public opinion to your side?
After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that passive-aggressiveness is the best aggressiveness.
First of all, THERE IS NO OFFICIAL DICTIONARY FOR THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE - something I verified with five minutes of research. Unless you have a reason that Merriam-Webster's dictionary is less reliable than Oxford's dictionary, then you're just making stuff up for the sake of an argument.
Second of all, when did I say "con should argue it is right for women to maliciously kill their child"? If you're going to call me a supporter of malicious child-killing, then I'm going to call you a [REMOVED BY USER REQUEST - MOD].
Third of all, yes, debates have no official ruling structure. This doesn't mean that voters can interpret the debate however they want. Your strawman is so easily knocked over that it's pathetic.
If you can't understand the concept of burden of proof, something so simple that I've explained it to 6th graders who have no experience in debate, then it really is hopeless trying to talk to you.
PRO is making a controversial claim. By default, he has to prove that controversial claim - I don't have the responsibility to prove it wrong. Yes, my opponent needs to do the work. If he didn't want to do that, then he shouldn't have affirmed such a controversial claim: "abortion is murder." Obviously, proving that wrong is easier than proving that right. How is it my fault that my opponent chose an unbalanced topic? (No hate to you Skipper, you seem like an OK guy).
I am not setting the rules - I am setting my framework for how I believe I will win the debate. Voters don't have to agree with me, but I guarantee you that almost all of them will. I don't have to convince you, someone who doesn't understand basic debate concepts. I have to convince actual voters.
Ok, rant over. Peace out.
I was thinking about conceding, but these comments keep things interesting. My argument will most likely be up by the end of the week.
Oh boy, this is going to escalate. 😂😂😂
"this is a widely accepted standard of debate, and votes on this site are moderated. Any experienced voter will rule on my favor when it comes to this point."
Did you even read my comment? These debates have no official ruling structure or a way to regulate rules even if it did, so it doesn't matter what everyone does; ruling decisions have to be agreed upon by the participants of the debate, not just inserted by one side. There is no official win condition, but you said what you need to do to win while also saying your opponent needs to do all the work. if this is how you regularly debate, i can see why Sir.Lancelot would think you are so good; not hard to win when you are setting all the rules.
"Got to say, the malice definition is more fair for this debate, since it gives pro a fighting chance. Whereas the legal one only applies in highly oppressive counties." - To pick an incorrect definition to help one side of a debate is an extremely poor debating technique, i don't see why any definition other than the official definition should even be considered.
If abortion = murder and murder requires malice, then you are saying con should argue it is right for women to maliciously kill their child.
Called what
Called it
Don’t even know the guy personally. I’m only aware that his debate skills are top-tier.
I think you worship AustinL0926. After reading this comment, you’ll probably post yet again out of arrogance and/or devotion to Austin. You probably can’t contain yourself, so I’ll just be waiting for your less than mature response
(Hmmm… unless he doesn’t respond… I hope it’s not passive-aggressive either…)
You cannot escape your fate by postponing the inevitable.
Alr
It’s safe to say I’ll be using the majority of the two week period to create a debate response
Any ETA on your R2? I'm leaving on a short trip soon, so I just want to know if I'll have time to respond to your argument before I leave.
I tried to warn you.
The experts have spoken
Merriam-Webster is more sporting.
There’s sound arguments to show malice, but none to prove legal is secretly illegal.
Sorry, I don't quite understand - are you saying the Oxford or Merriam-Webster definition is more fair?
Got to say, the malice definition is more fair for this debate, since it gives pro a fighting chance. Whereas the legal one only applies in highly oppressive counties.
1. It's not a false dichotomy - "right" in this context isn't referring to whether abortion is a good thing (in an ideal world, we would have zero abortions). It's referring to whether morally speaking, abortion is justified, which I think it is.
2. You're entitled to your own opinion, but the wonderful thing about neutral votes is that voter neither has to listen to you or I. By the way, I'm not just making this up - this is a widely accepted standard of debate, and votes on this site are moderated. Any experienced voter will rule on my favor when it comes to this point.
3. "Premeditated malice" has a very different meaning in law than in common usage. Premeditated malice is when you deliberately act to cause harm to someone - regardless of intentions. Please do some basic research.
1.) " Obviously, if I think abortion is not wrong, then the only other option is that I think it is right. This is self-evident, and is implied, regardless of whether it is explicitly stated in the resolution or not." to assume there can only be two options is a false dichotomy, you can be neutrally law-abiding, meaning you think it's bad if the law says it be, or good if the laws deem it so
2.) " When someone makes a statement that challenges the accepted status quo, and particularly when they are the one to start the argument, then the BoP is on them, regardless of the claim their opponent is defending." such a bold statement that can hold no weight in a free debate setting like this where there are no pre-established rules nor any officials to uphold any sort of rules even if there were rules, it is left to those partaking in the debate to decide, yet once again, you are attempting to establish rules one-sidedly.
3.) "and with premeditated malice” this line is what makes it a very different definition and an easy one for you to use in this debate as it is hard to say a mother is killing their unborn child out of malice
1. Obviously, if I think abortion is not wrong, then the only other option is that I think it is right. This is self-evident, and is implied, regardless of whether it is explicitly stated in the resolution or not.
This doesn't change the fact that the BoP is on my opponent. When someone makes a statement that challenges the accepted status quo, and particularly when they are the one to start the argument, then the BoP is on them, regardless of the claim their opponent is defending.
My opponent is not just making an unpopular claim, but an extreme one; not only does he say that abortion is wrong, he tries to prove this by claiming that abortion is murder. In these circumstances, it's very justified for me to place the burden of proof on him.
Additionally, it's a moot point, considering I proved that abortion is not murder anyway.
2. See above - the burden of proof is on my opponent. If you've ever been in a formal debate, you would know that the side affirming the resolution must prove the resolution, while the side negating it can either prove the resolution wrong, or negate the evidence provided by the affirmative.
3. It's literally the same definition - both have the same three key elements:
-killing of a human
-unlawful
-premeditated
I have 3 main problems with your argument;
1.) "The burden of proof falls squarely on my opponent" false, due to the fact the claim you are defending is "Abortion Is Right" to prove abortion is not wrong still does not show it is right either; that will be deriving "ought" from "is".
2.) "The winning conditions are different for each side, as a result of this burden of proof. My opponent must provide convincing and sufficient evidence to prove his claim. I must refute my opponent’s evidence. Crucially, I do not have to prove the topic wrong – I only have to prove that my opponent has not proved it right." why are you the one to determine how you win the argument? Surely, such a shortcut lacks any form of logic.
3.) I find it interesting that we are communicating in the English language; however, instead of using the official dictionary for the English language (oxford), you use a dictionary where the definition of murder is more stringent, and easier to rebuttal in this argument specifically.
"the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." - oxford dictionary
Sorry, but out of curiosity, how old are you?
Just read his post in the 1st round.
Now consider he’s only using 1% of his power.
How is AustinL0926 “just too good”?
Yes, I've heard of that - it's one of the things that inspired my argument, along with oromagi vs vici a few months ago.
Interestingly, a few women have been sent to prison for unplanned miscarriages.
I might have given him the benefit of the doubt, but after this brief interaction, I’m convinced now more than ever that I’m right.
Oh dear... what happened while I was at school?
I’m saying credibility isn’t necessary to argue my point.
HOW did you misinterpret that??????
“I don’t need credibility.”
I’m bored now.Sir Lancelot claims to be above the need to argue for his points. Ironically posted on a debate website
Why not wait for a few rounds before throwing around such claims? As the philosopher, David Humes said, there is no principle at work when making an inductive inference, no matter how forceful.
It has nothing to do with Skipper personally. Austin is frankly, just too good.
Skipper could have utilized months of prep and study time, and it still wouldn’t make a difference.
I don’t need credibility. The results will eventually prove my point for me.
Care to elaborate on why you predict it so?
It does lessen the credibility of your statements concerning debates, seeing as you have no experience debating according to your account
My lack of credentials will have no effect on Austin’s victory in this debate.
"Having Skipper debate Austin is too big of a mismatch.
The latter is going to make quick work of this discussion."
This coming from a user that has no debate credentials on their account
Could you please elaborate further?
Anytime, I am always happy to help.
Having Skipper debate Austin is too big of a mismatch.
The latter is going to make quick work of this discussion.
I am confused by what you mean. My opponent is arguing against pro-life
We don't need to argue. As soon as a strict pro-lifer walks in to the Con position the claim is proven false. Con wins with victory. That is how the wording sounds like. Luckily(or disappointingly) both parties didn't see this.
Sorry for the slightly delayed argument - will have it up by tmrw morning hopefully
That was insightful. Thank you
The most effective way I am aware of to debate using logic and not rhetorical ploys (appealing to emotion instead of reason) is to present a valid deductive or a forceful inductive argument; your opponent does the same, e.g. an argument can hold a modus tollens structure (if P then Q, not P therefore not Q) and the opponent has to disprove 1 of the premises because in logic if the conclusion does not follow by logical necessity from the premises (in this case if P then Q is the premise), then the entire argument is flawed and holds no weight, which is why I was expecting to analyse the entire argument to spot the structure and flaws, however, this does not mean your strategy is wrong either as I only attacked the lack of premises due to how solid your starting point was. I hope I was able to make some sense.