Instigator / Pro
18
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Topic
#4356
In-Clinic Abortion is homicide.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 3 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
18
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description
This debate will cover all stages of pregnancy but will not cover cases of rape, the removal of ectopic pregnancies, or abortions performed to save the life of the mother.
Homicide- The killing of one human being by another human being.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/homicide
Round 1
Science tells us that a fetus is a human being.:
They don’t understand the simplest biological fact about human development — that human life begins at fertilization.
A human zygote is most certainly a human being.
Merriam-Webster defines Abortion as.:
- The termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.
An in-clinic abortion is a minor medical procedure to end a pregnancy. The most common type is vacuum aspiration. The doctor puts a tube in the uterus.
Since homicide is a human killing another human, then it logically follows that abortion is homicide.
Topic
In-Clinic Abortion is homicide.
That is the topic, keep in mind, it won't be changed. What this means is that Pro attempts to draw an equivalence or subset relation between "in-clinic abortion" and "homicide" such that:
(In-clinic abortion == homicide) == True; (TYPE 1)
Or that:
(In-clinic abortion ⊂ homicide) == True; (TYPE 2)
And the successful disproof of either of the two shall grant one victory unless Pro brings up evidence to disprove that either of the two statements actually represents the topic.
Definition
Define clinic:
Clinic Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
: a class of medical instruction in which patients are examined and discussed
Define patient:
Patient Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
: an individual awaiting or under medical care and treatment
Since animals are individuals as they are distinguished organisms and lose life-characteristics if they are being additionally divided(thus individual), this means that sick animals, such as dogs and crippled horses, technically fit the definition of patients, or that veterinary clinics are clinics, and eventually that animal abortions, as long as it is applicable, counts as abortions.
Define Abortion:
Abortion Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus
I agree to this definition offered.
Arg 1: Not Human (TYPE 2)
It is a fact that a large amount of mammals can get pregnant tangibly(Source). Therefore they can be terminated. Any termination of pregnancy for any animal that is not a person would therefore not count as homicide, since, well, they are not human. Case closed.
Since there are cases where in-clinic abortion is not homicide, the essential equivalent of the topic is therefore disproven.
Arg 2: Sentient AI (TYPE 2)
Can AI operate without human supervision? Certainly. Let's take a look at ChatGPT, a chatbot that simply responds to all kinds of human talk, creatively, without a human being behind it at all times. If AI can do this, it is entirely possible for an AI to send signals to a mechanical combination in a clinic so to perform abortion on a biological being without humans sending the signal to any machine at all. In this case, even if we count the embryo as something once living being killed, since the "killer" does not have to be human, these cases are therefore in-clinic abortions and not homicides. Disproven.
Extension
Supposedly, a metal beam fell off causing a fetus to be killed (Let's just say, shockwave?) without anyone manually displacing the beam(Sometimes, they just fall off, and we can only try to prevent it and never actually removing all the possibilities for it, do we not? Labeling this instance as a homicidal event would be ridiculous as the metal beam possibly have gone through the hands of many metal workers, the asphalt and concrete of many roads, and the hands of many construction workers and maybe even the normal forces of many office workers or pedestrians treading directly on or beneath it, of which none of them are intentional in causing abortion. This killing event, if it is one, is not caused by "a human being" out of anything.
Arg 3: Problem of Inheritance (TYPE 2)
The metal beam example seems ridiculous for another reason. If we accredit the killing of that fetus to any one construction worker in the cause of all things, we might as well blame the worker's mother and even grandmother for giving birth to him to eventually causing damage. If Serial killer A killed a person, even though his mother and grandmother (etc.) have caused the event by bringing A alive in the first place, it would be absurd to bring the cause as far as one generation back.
To quote another paragraph that I have said myself:
If the fetus is not killed by merely the removal of the fetus from the womb, then it cannot be said that abortion is murder in these cases, even if we accept that the fetus is a person, since the results of an action cannot be inherited back to the action that caused that action. In the problem I gave above, dipping the fetus into HCl is killing, abortion is not. If inheriting one place back is acceptable, then recursion could be applied, in which the results of this action can be passed back to the action that caused it, and the action that caused that action, and so on. What would we get? We would get such as "Conception is murder". That is absurd.
The abortion procedure is not definite in killing people.
Even if it is being done adequately.
While the fetus is still alive in the narrow window after the abortion is done but before it is entirely dead, if we dip the fetus inside HCl acid(which is not a part of the abortion procedure), then what killed the fetus is the HCl acid tank, not the abortion procedure. These cases ensure the topic is not true, Type 2.
Extension
What if what destroyed the fetus is not a man-made steel beam but a tree trunk pollinated through birds naturally before human cultivation? That couldn't be attributed to any person at all. Friendly reminder, both kinds of shockwaves(and let's add a third, earthquakes) can be transmitted to within a building(therefore, within a clinic), and even if a woman is in a dentist appointment while in the setting of such shockwaves while being pregnant and resulting in that result, it would be in-clinic abortion. The elimination of such cases mean nothing because the meaning of "in-clinic" is not defined by Pro in the setup, therefore all the other terms shall be interpreted literally and liberally.
Arg 4: Homicide but not Abortion (TYPE 1)
If I gun down a non-pregnant adult as an adult, this is no abortion. Self explanatory.
Arg 5: Dead Fetus
Define Fetus
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind
Therefore, if the fetus's life ends due to environmental reasons(if it begins prior) before it is being removed, no homicide is involved. For these cases of abortion, they are all entirely outside the scope of homcide.
Rebuttals
Science tells us that a fetus is a human being.:They don’t understand the simplest biological fact about human development — that human life begins at fertilization.A human zygote is most certainly a human being.
Sure, but Pro ignores every single fetus that isn't a part of the Homo Sapien species, probably. Dog fetuses aren't human, hope we agree on that.
An in-clinic abortion is a minor medical procedure to end a pregnancy.
This sentence is structurally similar as "An apple here is red" when it comes to comprehension.
If we are to consider this description as the only kind of in-clinic abortions at all, in the same way, we would be disregarding all green and black apples from being apples if we take the statement written there as true, which it could be if there is a basket of assorted apples, including red ones.
Conclusions
- Abortions can occur without homicide if the fetus is not human or if the performer is not human.
- In-clinic abortion is not worded to represent an explicit definition.
- Technically, all abortions performed in a clinic, including unintentional ones, shall count as abortions.
- If we keep the fetus alive after taking it out then dip it into HCl acid, it is not abortion that killed it.
- Taking out a dead fetus is no homicide at all.
- Pro ignores non-human zygotes within the first argumentative speech.
Round 2
While I am referring to in-clinic abortion for human patients, it is technically true that the resolution does not discount animal fetuses as being included in the definition.
But it should be considered that when people discuss abortion in the general sense, this includes majority of scientific conversations, political discourse, or the discussion of ethics, it only refers to females of the human population. It's also worth noting that the human population of abortion patients (even discounting the cases in the description which do not fall within the debate parameters.) still well succeeds the animal population of abortion patients.
Guttmacher’s national total for 2020 was 930,160, a 1.5% increase from 916,460 in 2019.
What this means is just because Con provides exceptions by pointing out examples where abortion is not homicide (animal abortion, because they're not human.), it doesn't refute the resolution and it doesn't mean that abortion is not homicide.
So long as abortion be legal for humans, it can still be considered homicide. Unless Con refutes this.
Arg 2: Sentient AI (TYPE 2)Can AI operate without human supervision? Certainly. Let's take a look at ChatGPT, a chatbot that simply responds to all kinds of human talk, creatively, without a human being behind it at all times. If AI can do this, it is entirely possible for an AI to send signals to a mechanical combination in a clinic so to perform abortion on a biological being without humans sending the signal to any machine at all. In this case, even if we count the embryo as something once living being killed, since the "killer" does not have to be human, these cases are therefore in-clinic abortions and not homicides. Disproven.
Interesting point.
Since it was man who designed artificial intelligence with the specific command of terminating a human fetus, then it's as good as a human holding a gun to someone and pulling the trigger. Yes technically, it was the gun and the bullet that did the killing, not the person.
But as the specific command is automated for a purpose, then it stands to reason that this act was premeditated. And not just for one person, but multiple people. So whoever invented this murder machine is not only committing homicide, but genocide. And even if they did not commit the homicide themselves, they are still an accomplice and thereby an accessory.
So, one question.:
(Does Con object to the assertion that in all instances of in-clinic operations where it is a human medical professional performing an abortion on a human patient is an act of homicide when the fetus is alive?)
If the answer is yes, can Con refute this?
If not, then I rest my case.
Dropped
That is the topic, keep in mind, it won't be changed. What this means is that Pro attempts to draw an equivalence or subset relation between "in-clinic abortion" and "homicide" such that:(In-clinic abortion == homicide) == True; (TYPE 1)Or that:(In-clinic abortion ⊂ homicide) == True; (TYPE 2)And the successful disproof of either of the two shall grant one victory unless Pro brings up evidence to disprove that either of the two statements actually represents the topic.
This is dropped. I must apologize for making a distinction between type 1 and type 2, since the statement associated with type 1 is inherently included in the wording of what the type 2 statement is, as it basically means a non-proper subset. However, there has been no attempt at disproving a subset relationship.
Arg 3: Problem of InheritanceArg 4: Homicide but not AbortionArg 5: Dead Fetus
These 3 points are not even mentioned in the Pro R2 speech in any kind of directionated access, let alone rebuttals.
Rebuttals
While I am referring to in-clinic abortion for human patients, it is technically true that the resolution does not discount animal fetuses as being included in the definition.
Concession for Arg 1.
But it should be considered that when people discuss abortion in the general sense, this includes majority of scientific conversations, political discourse, or the discussion of ethics, it only refers to females of the human population.
Such clarifications were not brought up until the second round. If this is how narrow the scope is going to be, putting it in the description should be one's best bet. Not putting it in the description let alone not even the first round makes such a rule null. To exaggerate, if this is really Pro "wanted" to argue, this is essentially moving the goalpost.
What this means is just because Con provides exceptions by pointing out examples where abortion is not homicide (animal abortion, because they're not human.), it doesn't refute the resolution and it doesn't mean that abortion is not homicide. So long as abortion be legal for humans, it can still be considered homicide. Unless Con refutes this.
By seemingly dropping the subset representation of the resolution, because animal abortions are not within the homicide set as a subset(proper or not), this does refute the resolution. The same is for examples with dead fetuses, even in examples of live human beings as mothers.
But as the specific command is automated for a purpose, then it stands to reason that this act was premeditated. And not just for one person, but multiple people. So whoever invented this murder machine is not only committing homicide, but genocide. And even if they did not commit the homicide themselves, they are still an accomplice and thereby an accessory.
Seeing the growth of what AI is, an allowance to learn what in-clinic abortion is and how it can be done is enough for them to be able to perform it. In this case, it would be as absurd as accrediting a murder done by a child to their parents whose hands has not been stained by blood. Even if their parents should receive punishment for not taking care of and getting their child under control, their parents are ultimately NOT the murderer.
As the command was not outputted via a person(The command was only allowed to exist, but not caused by a human directly), this is not a case for homicide. More than that, if there is a machine that can automate in-clinic abortion to the point where the pressing of a single button suffices in completing the entire process correctly and effectively, and a chimpanzee or a tree log just so happens to apply pressure to the button without the command of any person, this is not homicide either. To say this is homicide is as absurd as saying that in a case with wind gusts with the component of the smokes of a grill of someone's backyard grilling blowing over a boulder and rolling it over someone smashed, the griller should be charged guilty for homicide; or to charge the inventor of the iPhone for homicide because someone slapped someone else dead using nothing else but an iPhone! How absurd is that?
(Does Con object to the assertion that in all instances of in-clinic operations where it is a human medical professional performing an abortion on a human patient is an act of homicide when the fetus is alive?)
Irrelevant to the debate topic.
Conclusion
- Abortions can occur without homicide if the fetus is not human or if the performer is not human.
- In-clinic abortion is not worded to represent an explicit definition.
- Technically, all abortions performed in a clinic, including unintentional ones, shall count as abortions.
- If we keep the fetus alive after taking it out then dip it into HCl acid, it is not abortion that killed it.
- Taking out a dead fetus is no homicide at all.
Round 3
(Does Con object to the assertion that in all instances of in-clinic operations where it is a human medical professional performing an abortion on a human patient is an act of homicide when the fetus is alive?)Irrelevant to the debate topic.
Extend that in all instances of a human professional performing an abortion on a human mother with a living fetus is an act of homicide. (Remains dropped by Con and is relevant to the thread.) If Con doesn’t contest this, then it stands that abortion is homicide.
Extend that the amount of human females receiving abortions well succeeds the amount of animal abortions, and pointing out exceptions to the claim doesn’t refute the claim.
In-Clinic Abortion is homicide.
Suggests that
In-clinic abortion ⊂ homicide
Which goes unrefuted.
Therefore, the objective is not to prove that
(In-clinic abortion ∩ Homicide) ≠ {∅}
As an existing intersection does not rule out cases where
A ∈ In-clinic abortion; A ∉ Homicide
And such cases automatically violate
In-clinic abortion ⊂ homicide
Which represents the topic statement.
In-Clinic Abortion is homicide
All Pro has shown is that there is an intersection while outright failing to regard special cases of which
A ∈ In-clinic abortion; A ∉ Homicide
Involving dead fetuses, abortion procedure not killing the fetus, and non-human abortions, DROPPING all three types.
Because
(In-clinic abortion ∩ Homicide) ≠ {∅}
Does not auto-prove
In-clinic abortion ⊂ homicide
Therefore, Pro failed to uphold the claim.
However, Con has shown that there exists cases "A" where
A ∈ In-clinic abortion; A ∉ Homicide
Therefore disproving
In-clinic abortion ⊂ homicide
And thus the topic
In-Clinic Abortion is homicide.
Vote CON.
Round 4
Extend.
Extend.
Round 5
Extend.
Extend.
Push
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Americandebater24 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con (Conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
The debate was unprofessional, as Pro claimed that clinical abortion is homicide, a legal assertion. This means Pro should have argued from a legal standpoint to prove that clinical abortion is homicidal. Instead, they simply used the biological consideration of a fetus being alive without addressing any legal complexities on the subject of abortion. Con provided more sources and had a better format but still failed to address the actual legal rebuttals one would expect in a discussion on a legal topic such as abortion. Therefore they neither made a more convincing argument nor provided more reliable sources as neither Pro nor Con were on topic when it came to the Primus of the debate.
However, Con presented a more structured argument and provided more sources than Pro, leading me to vote for Con based on better conduct.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter's explanation for why they're choosing not to award arguments or sources is sufficient, but the conduct point does not meet the voting standards. Quoting the voting policy:
"Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate. Common examples are repeatedly using personal attacks instead of arguments, committing plagiarism or otherwise cheating."
In other words, the voter must provide some reason to believe that one side was abusive to the other or otherwise acted inappropriately. What the voter has presented here falls more in line with slight legibility improvements (which would not be sufficient to award legibility by themselves) and more sources (which would also not be sufficient to award sources). As such, the vote is insufficient.
**************************************************
I'll vote on this later... at the very least, it's an interesting enough debate that it deserves a vote that actually considers both sides' arguments.
The fact that you consider "metal beam abortion" and "tree trunk abortion" arguments in of themselves, let alone SEPARATE points, speaks volumes about how you didn't even read my argument clearly.
My conclusion was made in R3. Did you read any of that?
Done
Make the time a week and I can accept.