In-Clinic Abortion is homicide.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...
- 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
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
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.
- 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.
In-Clinic Abortion is homicide.
(In-clinic abortion == homicide) == True; (TYPE 1)
(In-clinic abortion ⊂ homicide) == True; (TYPE 2)
Clinic Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
: a class of medical instruction in which patients are examined and discussed
Patient Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
: an individual awaiting or under medical care and treatment
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
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.
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind
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.
An in-clinic abortion is a minor medical procedure to end a pregnancy.
- 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.
Guttmacher’s national total for 2020 was 930,160, a 1.5% increase from 916,460 in 2019.
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.
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.
Arg 3: Problem of InheritanceArg 4: Homicide but not AbortionArg 5: Dead Fetus
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.
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.
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.
(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?)
- 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.
(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.
In-Clinic Abortion is homicide.
In-clinic abortion ⊂ homicide
(In-clinic abortion ∩ Homicide) ≠ {∅}
A ∈ In-clinic abortion; A ∉ Homicide
In-clinic abortion ⊂ homicide
In-Clinic Abortion is homicide
A ∈ In-clinic abortion; A ∉ Homicide
(In-clinic abortion ∩ Homicide) ≠ {∅}
In-clinic abortion ⊂ homicide
A ∈ In-clinic abortion; A ∉ Homicide
In-clinic abortion ⊂ homicide
In-Clinic Abortion is homicide.
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.
This debate is essentially a semantic back-and-forth, and I can't really blame Con for playing Pro's game here, since it was obviously intended to be a technical win with the description of homicide in the description. I think the semantic bit could have been argued either way, but it turned out in Con's favor since both sides seemed to agree to a very literal interpretation. Animal abortions went conceded by Pro, and that's where the resolution comes in. Had the resolution been "Abortions are homicide," then Pro might have won by saying that the statement is true more often than not. But Con makes a compelling case that the resolution is a subcategory classification, essentially that abortion is a subset of homicide. This largely goes unchallenged by Pro.
Essentially, Pro argues that the resolution is generally true, but Con provides an interpretation wherein a single exception negates the resolution. I don't even know if an animal abortion has ever been performed in a clinic on an animal, but that point largely goes conceded by Pro. The internet seems to indicate that these kinds of services are offered for animals, but that's largely tangential to who argued their point better in the debate. At the very least, the animal point gives the win to Con, since Pro doesn't challenge that animal abortions actually happen.
Pro starts by saying that fetus is a human being, that human life begins at fertilization and that human zygote is most certainly a human being.
Pro gives the definition of an abortion and an in-clinic abortion. Pro concludes that abortion is homicide.
Con brings up arguments "1) animal abortions, 2) AI abortions, 3) metal beam abortions, 4) problem of Inheritance, 5) Accidental abortion 6) Abortion not caused by humans, 7) homicide but not abortion, 8) abortion when the fetus survives, 9) Dead fetus not killed by abortion, 10) Fetus being killed by acid 11) Tree trunk abortion".
These arguments are proven incorrect by definitions given by Pro:
"fetus is 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."
Con says "Pro ignores every single fetus that isn't a part of the Homo Sapien species".
Pro's definitions are proven true when Pro says: "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.",
"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."
Con defends his AI argument: "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."
Pro did refute the AI argument before: "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.".
Since Pro proved his definitions to be true, the resolution is proved in Pro's favor. Argument points are given to Pro.
Both Pro and Con used sources. Sources are tie.
Legibility was similar. Legibility is tie.
Conduct was good on both sides. Conduct is a tie.
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.