Abortion Is Not Murder.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 12 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
No information
This debate requires a large burden of Con - they need to show (or at least convincingly paint) abortion as unlawful and malicious.
Con asserts abortion involves a desire to inflict a lethal injury to another in an effort to make it malicious. Does it? I didn’t see an argument attempting to establish this. Suffice to say, I am unconvinced of this claim. Beyond this, Con needs to argue this malice is directed at a person. She makes an attempt after defining embryo, but ultimately makes another bald assertion the embryo is a person - just like children, but this isn’t true developmentally or legally. Again, I have no argument to be convinced by. Malice without a target is not illegal and there can be no crime without a victim. Ultimately, I wasn't convinced by either debater, but Con had the burden and Pro wins by default.
Con’s argument is purely one of semantics laced with misnomers, which is why anyone who tries to engage in a debate/discussion on the subject of this debate – abortion is murder – ultimately fails to meet their BoP.
Con agrees to both definitions of murder Pro provides, but specifically chooses the second because it includes the term ‘a person’ within it, a term that is the crux of his entire position. Throughout the debate Con never defined what ‘a person’ is, and attributed this term to an “abortion anwhere (stage) in the pregnancy process…” In addition to Con’s misinterpretation and incorrect use of the terms ‘malice’ and ‘intent,’ this (never defining and/or correctly using the term ‘a person’) is where Con failed in his BoP and the debate on the whole.
Con also conflates a pregnancy, which is developing, as being equal to already born children. This is a false equivalency fallacy, since the pregnancy is a process of gestational development whereas a born person is in a process of biological and physiological growth (ie – maturation), it is not gestational development. Also, Con appears to not understand that being human in origin =/= being [a] human (being). This demonstrates to me a clear lack of understanding of the subject matter down to the basic use of factually accurate terminology in arguing their position.
While I could easily go on addressing the flaws in Con’s arguments, the fact remains that when you begin an argument with a false premise (and clear lack of understanding of the subject material), your conclusion will likewise be false.
Pro also did not seem to correctly use the term ‘a person’ either, but his final definition serves his purpose in prevailing in the debate. I do not agree with the insertion of the abortion on animal species into the debate (e.g. – red herring, irrelevant). Both parties spent too much time on definitions and how to interject their interpretation of terms into the debate, rather than debating the actual core issue: is abortion murder.
Pro could have used more sources to support his position but did not take the opportunity to do so. Con’s use of sources was basic (used to back up claimed definitions used in their argument, albeit incorrectly used); and one source, NPR… tisk tisk.
Pro clearly tried to stick to basic and scientific facts (ie - common knowledge), while Con repeated the usual unconvincing pro-life talking points, all of which are highly contestable and routinely debunked. Neither side used truly "reliable" sources; and both conducted themselves with proper decorum. Pro prevailed in this debate.
An interesting take on the debate. The BoP is admitted to be on Con. Con failed to meet their burden for the following reasons:
The definition of Murder as accepted has two parts to it. “To kill (a person) unlawfully and with malice.” Con only addresses the malice part. At no time does either side talk about the lawfulness. Therefore the killing of a person without malice is not murder. The killing of a person with malice, that is lawful (death penalty) is not murder. This distinction\ is not addressed by either party.
Pro won this debate by Con failing to meet their BoP. An absolute mountain of a BoP if I must say. Pro should have been able to put this to bed very quickly but failed to do so. That being said, the BoP is clear, and therefore Pro wins.
The focus on when life begins, and the concept of intent to cause harm was interesting. I do not buy Pro's argument that a justified abortion means it does not have malice, based on the definition provided. I do not buy Pro's argument about abortions being on animals as well. I accept Con's argument (though I do not agree with it) abortion has an element of malice in it, based on the definitions provided.
For me, Con set the definition of murder, and did not complete the analysis. Sources spelling and conduct tied.
Con accepts the burden of proof, though they probably should have contested that point more strongly. They accept a lot of definitions from Pro, and this means that Con has to prove that the majority of abortions are:
(a) illegal
(b) performed with malice
(c) performed on persons
Both sides seem to agree that a brain is required for personhood. Pro also argues for the ability to feel pain as a requirement, and Con drops this. Now the burden on Con is to prove that most abortions are performed illegally on fetuses that can feel pain. They never establish this, which makes me lean toward Pro.
Neither side really talks about whether the "majority" of abortions fit these criteria. Most abortions occur in the first trimester, where there's no consensus that fetuses feel pain, but neither side brings that up. But then again, Con would seem to argue in the final round that the majority of abortions are performed on fetuses that can feel pain (which they don't support), drops the illegality point, and skips a round, giving Pro no opportunity to respond to a number of their claims. So Pro takes the win here.
Repeat practice debates are like a time loop.
Thanks for the vote!
Oh, that's what that was. I thought your vote got removed for some reason lol. I was surprised because it seemed pretty detailed.
Completely fine, it's helpful. I am planning on fixing those mistakes with my redo practice debate again with him. We'll see.
Yep. It should be fixed now.
Sorry, Bella, I really,really wanted to vote for you, but you were beat by the burden.
Did you switch Pro and Con in the first half of your RFD? I got confused near the end.
Hah, I knew I wasn't the only one who thought ur vote was a little, um... lol. But thanks for the revote.
I support any change that would increase clarity on the issue.
Well, the site admin was wrong and needs to change it back for the reasons stated within the voting guide and the article clearly articulating what legibility truly is. I started a thread on this under the DART forum.
The decision to change from Spelling and Grammar to Legibility was a recent one (long after that 2019 voting guide post from bsh1) made by the site admin, not me. If you find the term insufficient or problematic, you're welcome to take it up with him.
It's clear based on this, https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1790/posts/76387, that you all need to change "legibility" to "spelling & grammar."
For the edification of all the powers that be at DART: https://creativepro.com/legibility-and-readability-whats-the-difference/
Thank you. That would be lovely. I always appreciate when someone makes an effort to comb through votes - it ensures that I'm doing my job thoroughly.
Guess what, I am going to start reviewing votes from several debates.
If any one of them are missing a single detail based on your flimsy excuse(s), I will report them.
If those votes are not removed by YOU, then it will prove two things: 1) you have a hardon for me, and 2) you're a hypocrite.
I'm not here to argue with you about this. You understand the rules for voting on the site. You can and do provide detailed votes. When you award multiple point categories, you have to explain all of them explicitly. If you want to draw my attention to something you said in your vote, then do so instead of jeering at me.
Put your glasses on, gramps/grandma.
You also are in the position to disagree with the report.
Like I said, you have been nitpricking and it’s clearly biased.
I deal with reports as I see them. If you have a reason for awarding legibility, state it explicitly, and make certain that it meets the voting standards.
“The voter sufficiently explains Arguments, but does not explain their reasoning for awarding Legibility.”
The reasoning is found within the explanation. It’s called: read between the lines.
Either way, this is nitpricking Bs!
You clearly have a Hardon for me.
Thx for removing Apprentice’s vote, not TWS. My bad. I responded too late
That report was not by me, i swear!
But thanks for removing it, whiteflame
😎
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TWS1405_2 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro (Arguments, Legibility)
>Reason for Decision:
Con’s argument is purely one of semantics laced with misnomers, which is why anyone who tries to engage in a debate/discussion on the subject of this debate – abortion is murder – ultimately fails to meet their BoP.
Con agrees to both definitions of murder Pro provides, but specifically chooses the second because it includes the term ‘a person’ within it, a term that is the crux of his entire position. Throughout the debate Con never defined what ‘a person’ is, and attributed this term to an “abortion anwhere (stage) in the pregnancy process…” In addition to Con’s misinterpretation and incorrect use of the terms ‘malice’ and ‘intent,’ this (never defining and/or correctly using the term ‘a person’) is where Con failed in his BoP and the debate on the whole.
Con also conflates a pregnancy, which is developing, as being equal to already born children. This is a false equivalency fallacy, since the pregnancy is a process of gestational development whereas a born person is in a process of biological and physiological growth (ie – maturation), it is not gestational development. Also, Con appears to not understand that being human in origin =/= being [a] human (being). This demonstrates to me a clear lack of understanding of the subject matter down to the basic use of factually accurate terminology in arguing their position.
While I could easily go on addressing the flaws in Con’s arguments, the fact remains that when you begin an argument with a false premise (and clear lack of understanding of the subject material), your conclusion will likewise be false.
Pro also did not seem to correctly use the term ‘a person’ either, but his final definition serves his purpose in prevailing in the debate. I do not agree with the insertion of the abortion on animal species into the debate (e.g. – red herring, irrelevant). Both parties spent too much time on definitions and how to interject their interpretation of terms into the debate, rather than debating the actual core issue: is abortion murder.
Pro could have used more sources to support his position but did not take the opportunity to do so. Con’s use of sources was basic (used to back up claimed definitions used in their argument, albeit incorrectly used); and one source, NPR… tisk tisk.
Pro clearly tried to stick to basic and scientific facts (ie - common knowledge), while Con repeated the usual unconvincing pro-life talking points, all of which are highly contestable and routinely debunked. Neither side used truly "reliable" sources; and both conducted themselves with proper decorum. Pro prevailed in this debate.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter sufficiently explains Arguments, but does not explain their reasoning for awarding Legibility.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheApprentice // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources), 1 point to Pro (Conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
Con provided more convincing arguments for the short duration of debating. There were some interesting conflicts when defining the concept of person, but Con’s definition and examples in the final round were quite persuasive. I will contribute that to his position as final speaker, as well as how he handled the potential of the embryo, which I didn’t quite think Pro argued for as effectively.
When concerning the definition of malice, I do think Pro had a more reasonable and realistic approach to the term in the context of the debate, but I don’t think he responded directly enough on the points where he had more leverage. I could kind of predict where he was going to go, but as it wasn’t stated, and the debate was cut short, I have to give it to Con.
Would be interested in another round, though. Great debate.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter sufficiently explains Arguments, but does not explain either Sources or Conduct.
**************************************************
Yes, I clearly misunderstood the definitions.
I believe my take on intent, is different in some cases. However, it still is with an intent.
With your definition, I can completely say, "I have the resolve to kill another because I got harassed". "I am determined to get rid of this child, because I do not want them." And if we go off terms of "morals" it is almost irrelevant, also being that we cannot possibly know somebodys mindset. That being said, i'm not only going into this with the (not) mom's mindset, but the doctors mindset. But it's all the same thing. "My job is to kill another because they got harassed", etc.
Think about it this way, someone bumped into me, I am determined to get revenge on their daughter. The one that is harmless, I am going off to hurt them with malice or in other words, 'criminal' intent.
With that out of the way, murder is a crime. And you are killing another being, therefore abortion is murder.
I'm not saying I won't take into consideration your comments / vote but i'm not going to fully or even mostly regard it either. I don't completely agree with your vote nor your opinion. I believe there is things unaddressed, but also to a degree unhelpful. I cannot even see how you awarded a certain point. But that's alright.. There were some things I saw that I could improve on from your vote and I will be using.
As with all the other terms you clearly misunderstood and incorrectly used in the debate, intent is one of them.
Murder is a criminal act. Therefore this debate hinges on proving abortion is a crime.
The legal definition of intent is as follows:
Criminal intent is defined as the resolve or determination with which a person acts to commit a crime.
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/element-intent-criminal-law#:~:text=Criminal%20intent%20is%20defined%20as,acts%20to%20commit%20a%20crime.
You are arguing the layman’s definition of intent here, which makes is a misnomer. Such a layman’s definition has no relevance to a criminal act, as there is no criminal intent to behave criminally in your scenario.
Abortion is legal.
Abortion is a medical procedure.
Abortion is not murder.
I'll be specifically responding to this:
"No girl/woman ever desires (with intent) to have an abortion; there is no malice on her part."
This is false.
When you say intent, do I or do I not go , specifically to schedule an appointment of sorts to have an abortion done? I go to the doctor for the abortion. I have an intent to remove the person. Just because that person may have had thoughts not to, or the person (child) was 'thrown' on to them doesn't mean it wasn't with intent. I intend for the baby to get killed and removed. Yes, it intent.
This is the correct definition of ‘a person’:
1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8
In short, 'a person' is a born human being. Birth is the criteria. Once born that viable fetus becomes 'a person' under the eyes of the law, socially, culturally and psychologically.
Murder is 'a person' taking the life of another 'a person' with malice, aforethought and without legal justification to do so.
No girl/woman ever desires (with intent) to have an abortion; there is no malice on her part. Abortion is a safe legal medical procedure whereby the majority of which (89-94%, give or take reported year) are done before 14 weeks gestation, with the majority of those being before 6 weeks. Less than 1.3% are done after 22 weeks, which is the point of fetal viability (for emergency or medically necessary reasons).
Since a pregnancy =/= 'a person,' abortion =/= murder.
Thanks, guys!
Yep. I will get to it.
Will do.
Taking the fetus out but killing it by a means other than just taking it out(terminating pregnancy) such as dipping it into HCl acid makes it possible for abortion to not necessarily be murder, even if we consider fetuses “alive” in all cases.
Will do
Would you guys be willing to vote on this?
Thanks for the vote!
Are you alright with a link to google docs (public)? Or would you like me to shorten it?
Sure, make another debate. I hope I'll be able to accept because I can't accept certain debates on here because criteria
Want to debate this subject?
Abortion - the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.
Murder definition is already stated in the debate.
Abortion is illegal in some parts of the world and we all know murder is illegal, so with that being said, abortion is definitely murder. If it isn't then why is it illegal in some parts of the world? It's the killing of a human. Just because abortion can be performed on dogs and cats doesn't make abortion not murder.
In order to have a meaningful debate, both participants must first establish a mutually agreed definition of what constitutes a human being, as well as a clear definition of murder. Without these foundational definitions, it is impossible to engage in a productive discussion on the topic. However, I look forward to discussing these subtopics so we can ultimately answer this imperative question.
Semantics.
Rape is not wrong.