Instigator / Pro
0
1524
rating
53
debates
75.47%
won
Topic
#4528
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
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 18,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Description
Definitions:
Murder:
Kill (a person) unlawfully and with malice.
Abortion:
Abortion is when a pregnancy is ended so that it doesn't result in the birth of a child.
Malice:
: desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another
Fetus:
An offspring of a human or other mammal in the stages of prenatal development that follow the embryo stage (in humans taken as beginning eight weeks after conception)
--
Any other defintions should be in used in this primary context or should be presented first round (unless mentioned later on).
Rules:
- Unless requested otherwise before the debate begins, I believe these defintions are fair meaning you agree to my defintions.
- Burden of Proof is shared.
Round 1
Round 2
Pro
#3
I always manage to see these when there is less than two hours. But at least I got another week to procrastinate.
Anyways, thanks Con for your patience.
Point
Case
The following will be talked about:
- Abortion is done with malice
- An embryo is still a person
- Not all abortions are done within the correct timing
- Everyone was once an embryo
- Embryos are not just a clump of cells
- Embryos have distinctive DNA of people, not a dog, not a cat
Burden
The burden is shared between both users, pro and con.
Pro must prove that Abortion is Murder.
Con must prove that Abortion is not Murder.
By doing this, I as pro, will need to show that number one, a embryo is a human and number two, the process or wanting of abortion is done with the intent of malice. The opposite is provided by con.
Definitions:
Murder:
Kill (a person) unlawfully and with malice.
Abortion:
Abortion is when a pregnancy is ended so that it doesn't result in the birth of a child.
Malice:
: desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another
Fetus:
An offspring of a human or other mammal in the stages of prenatal development that follow the embryo stage (in humans taken as beginning eight weeks after conception)
I. An embryo is still a person- we have connections.
Idea of "clump of cells"
This will be talked about a little bit later on in the next section of this contention. But as of right now, I will be providing that they are not just a clump of cells, they are human beings as well.
This is quite long:
In sum, a mature human sperm and a mature human oocyte are products of gametogenesis each has only 23 chromosomes. They each have only half of the required number of chromosomes for a human being. They cannot singly develop further into human beings. They produce only "gamete" proteins and enzymes. They do not direct their own growth and development. And they are not individuals, i.e., members of the human species. They are only parts each one a part of a human being. On the other hand, a human being is the immediate product of fertilization. As such he/she is a single-cell embryonic zygote, an organism with 46 chromosomes, the number required of a member of the human species. This human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes, directs his/her own further growth and development as human, and is a new, genetically unique, newly existing, live human individual.
After fertilization the single-cell human embryo doesn't become another kind of thing. It simply divides and grows bigger and bigger, developing through several stages as an embryo over an 8-week period. Several of these developmental stages of the growing embryo are given special names, e.g., a morula (about 4 days), a blastocyst (5-7 days), a bilaminar (two layer) embryo (during the second week), and a trilaminar (3-layer) embryo (during the third week).
...
.. Quoting Carlson:
"... Through the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."
I thought this would be better than me explaining the entire thing. However, in a summary, a human being is the immediate product of fertilization. While it is true that sperm and oocyte are not a human being, as said, a human being is the immediate product of fertilization. Which is further supported above.
Every person was born as an embryo
Not a single person was born without being an embryo once in their life. This is the major connection. Nobody has skipped this process.
The problem here is some people view them as not a person because they are not fully developed. This is the wrong idea. Children are not fully matured yet, are they? They are still growing. This doesn't mean they should be killed because they still are still growing. Same thing goes with an embryo. It's just as animals, they aren't viewed as not animals anymore because they are still in the animals (stomach). You don't just change race because of your development process.
An embryo has distinctive DNA from both biological parents
Once at fertilization, the embryo and above has distinctive DNA from both parents. This is distinctive from an animal, an object, or a plant. They are not a completely different race. They have DNA that ONLY humans have. We cannot categorize them as anything else. Do they have animal cells? Or plant cells? No, they do not. They have human cells, DNA cells.
There is no (to an extent) limit of being a person
Embryo as I have provided above, have distinct things that prove they are a human being. Just because we have no evidence of them feeling pain does not mean, first off, that they don't feel pain. And second off, that they aren't human beings.
People with disabilities are not like the majority of people, but that does not mean they are not human beings. Some people don't have arms or legs, that does not mean they are not human beings. But also with embryos, they are NOT in any way different from ANY other human being. Why? Because ALL human beings were once an embryo. All humans once acted that exact way.
Not all doctors proceed abortion on embryo
Many people fail to recognize that many of the con-side choices are restricted to one part of the development process. Otherwise it contradicts themselves.
A fetus does have a brain, and more features that distinguish itself. Some people get the misconception that abortion is always on an embryo. That is wrong. Fetuses are also jumbled in the mix.
III. Malice is done the moment you wish for the unborn to die.
I'm unsure if I am using malice in the wrong context, so, we'll see.
Malice is done with the intent when you ask to have an abortion. Why? It does not matter what the case is, that you want abortion, you still have the overall thought of wanting abortion. You have a choice to keep them, or seek intentional permeant harm on them. This is a choice. The idea of all this is, for their own personal interests such as their own personal self, they choose to kill the person. That is malice.
Sources:
Con
#4
I will argue that Abortion is not murder based on the following.
- A fetus is not a person.
- Abortions are not done with the intent of malice.
- The life of a fetus is misunderstood.
- While categorized as human by scientific terminology, there is nothing "human" about a brainless body.
Definitions
Person- A person (PL: people) is a being that has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness.
Contentions
A fetus lacks the capacity for reason, morality, and consciousness because it is not sentient.
Every person was born as an embryoNot a single person was born without being an embryo once in their life. This is the major connection. Nobody has skipped this process.The problem here is some people view them as not a person because they are not fully developed. This is the wrong idea. Children are not fully matured yet, are they? They are still growing. This doesn't mean they should be killed because they still are still growing. Same thing goes with an embryo. It's just as animals, they aren't viewed as not animals anymore because they are still in the animals (stomach). You don't just change race because of your development process.
And an organism cannot be born without the process of fornication or through sperm donation. There is no skipping this step.
This doesn't mean that every sperm cell that dies is the loss of a human life, if we're using technicalities.
Not all doctors proceed abortion on embryoMany people fail to recognize that many of the con-side choices are restricted to one part of the development process. Otherwise it contradicts themselves.A fetus does have a brain, and more features that distinguish itself. Some people get the misconception that abortion is always on an embryo. That is wrong. Fetuses are also jumbled in the mix.
Even still, the cutoff point for an abortion is usually within 14 weeks. The starting point for the development of consciousness or sentience doesn't begin until the 18th week.
III. Malice is done the moment you wish for the unborn to die.I'm unsure if I am using malice in the wrong context, so, we'll see.Malice is done with the intent when you ask to have an abortion. Why? It does not matter what the case is, that you want abortion, you still have the overall thought of wanting abortion. You have a choice to keep them, or seek intentional permeant harm on them. This is a choice. The idea of all this is, for their own personal interests such as their own personal self, they choose to kill the person. That is malice.
Pro's definition of malice is.:
"Malice:
: desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another"
The majority of women who receive abortions would never wish suffering on another creature. Going through with an abortion does not even mean they desire to cause suffering to the fetus.
But a fetus is incapable of feeling pain anyway.
Assuming it could feel pain, it doesn't mean the woman wishes it suffering. It only means that her desire to terminate the pregnancy is greater than her desire to stop the injury to the fetus. This isn't the same as the want to cause it unnecessary pain.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Before I get into the rebuttals, as for con's only response, many human beings don't have some of the things that con states.
The fetus is their own individual person, they have their own distinctive DNA, they are their own person, not any other thing. They, in the development process do not change to a chicken or fox, they are like said, their own individual person. This doesn't change just because they lack some things that some humans have.
Rebuttals:
ContentionsA fetus lacks the capacity for reason, morality, and consciousness because it is not sentient.
Con does not fully argue their point that was explained above.
Fetuses do have brains, which I will later support.
I argue that even (especially) babies, child, and adults sometimes lack morality. Obviously, you can not learn morality until you are taught . Do they have the potential to be taught morality? Yes.
Defense:
And an organism cannot be born without the process of fornication or through sperm donation. There is no skipping this step.This doesn't mean that every sperm cell that dies is the loss of a human life, if we're using technicalities.
I don't know how this directly related to my contention, but okay.
This is where my previous part of the contention, before this was introduced.
A human being is the immediate product of fertilization, not sperm cells on there own.
Even still, the cutoff point for an abortion is usually within 14 weeks. The starting point for the development of consciousness or sentience doesn't begin until the 18th week.
This doesn't apply everywhere is my point.
Also, you state "14 weeks" the problem with this is fetus do have brains before then. As stated below:
"In just the fifth week after conception, the first synapses begin forming in a fetus’s spinal cord. By the sixth week, these early neural connections permit the first fetal movements–spontaneous arches and curls of the whole body–that researchers can detect through ultrasound imaging. Many other movements soon follow–of the limbs (around eight weeks) and fingers (ten weeks), as well as some surprisingly coordinated actions (hiccuping, stretching, yawning, sucking, swallowing, grasping, and thumb-sucking)."
I'm not actually sure if scientists have changed such reasoning meaning this might be an uphill battle on when fetus can and can't feel.
This is before 14 weeks which means they are killing a person that has a mind, can think, and can feel.
Pro's definition of malice is.:"Malice:: desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another"The majority of women who receive abortions would never wish suffering on another creature. Going through with an abortion does not even mean they desire to cause suffering to the fetus.
I desire to cause the fetus death, so the pregnancy doesn't happen. I'll provide further examples below.
But a fetus is incapable of feeling pain anyway.
I think this is besides the point..
For example, if we kill someone with channelopathy-associated congenital insensitivity, does it mean we didn't kill them because they can't feel pain? No.
Assuming it could feel pain, it doesn't mean the woman wishes it suffering. It only means that her desire to terminate the pregnancy is greater than her desire to stop the injury to the fetus. This isn't the same as the want to cause it unnecessary pain.
Greater than her desire to stop the injury to the fetus, you say? But you still have a desire, regardless of what is greater.
Not only, but when you wish to terminate a pregnancy, what does that do? In the long run, you are wishing to kill the embryo/fetus in the process of the pregnancy.
Such as if I was going to murder someone, and hey, I didn't like their attitude. I want to kill them to get rid of their attitude towards me.
"My intention is to get rid of their attitude but in the process, I want to make sure they die so I get rid of their attitude."
"My intention is to get rid of a pregnancy but in the process, I want to make sure the fetus dies so the pregnancy doesn't happen."
Con
#6
I wish to talk more about the Malice definition in depth by breaking it down into two examples.
- Malice implies a level of sadism where the specific intent is to derive pleasure from causing pain.
- Pain caused to someone else through Self-Preservation is based on a desire to look after oneself, while the other person is just collateral.
If a person takes six people hostage and tortures them for days, that is done with malice because the person is deliberately hurting them to take pleasure.
But if a killer holds a victim at gunpoint and gives them the choice between killing someone else or being shot and the victim chooses to kill somebody in order to live. That doesn’t mean the person had a desire to hurt someone, but their instincts of self preservation were greater than their desire to not take someone else’s life.
In most cases of abortion, the mother wants to stop the pregnancy. But there is no want to cause the fetus suffering.
Round 4
Pro
#7
Before we get into Malice, con did not directly challenge me on malice, but the intent is clear. However, I hope voters still keep the following in mind:
"Not only, but when you wish to terminate a pregnancy, what does that do? In the long run, you are wishing to kill the embryo/fetus in the process of the pregnancy.
Such as if I was going to murder someone, and hey, I didn't like their attitude. I want to kill them to get rid of their attitude towards me.
"My intention is to get rid of their attitude but in the process, I want to make sure they die so I get rid of their attitude."
"My intention is to get rid of a pregnancy but in the process, I want to make sure the fetus dies so the pregnancy doesn't happen."
Rebuttals/Defense:
PART ONE EXPLINATION:
- Malice implies a level of sadism where the specific intent is to derive pleasure from causing pain.
I slightly agree and disagree.
It depends how you view pleasure. Let me break it down for pleasure :
- Pleasure in not having the pregnancy
- Pleasure in not having the child
- Pleasure in their pain
Now, since we already addressed this last round, I believe it would be either the first or second one. Maybe both. Though the way i'm using the world "pleasure" may come out confusing.
"I had great relief that the pregnancy was terminated"
"I had great relief that that I was not having a child"
But I want to dig a bit deeper. I don't think you need to have any level of sadism.
For example, one can kill someone but then on the other hand, feel bad about it and have no pleasure. But still killed them, with an intent to kill them.
You can kill someone, not wanting them to suffer, but still have an intent on killing them.
PART TWO EXPLINATION:
- Pain caused to someone else through Self-Preservation is based on a desire to look after oneself, while the other person is just collateral.
This I agree and don't agree with at the same time.
Self-Preservation though to protect one's self is still murder if you killed someone.
How about this example:
"Jing was abused by his parents, and killed them to protect himself"
or
"Jing killed his parents, to protect himself from taking on the responsibilities of chores"
The desire is, in this case, to kill someone to then look after themselves. Not the desire to just protect themselves, its two ways.
SUMMARIZE:
If a person takes six people hostage and tortures them for days, that is done with malice because the person is deliberately hurting them to take pleasure.But if a killer holds a victim at gunpoint and gives them the choice between killing someone else or being shot and the victim chooses to kill somebody in order to live. That doesn’t mean the person had a desire to hurt someone, but their instincts of self preservation were greater than their desire to not take someone else’s life.
So, for the first one I agree.
As for the second one, if a killer offered that per say, the desire is for the killer to shoot another so they can be protected. Sure, I can agree that another motive is wanting to be protected, but do you see the main goal?
Main goal: Let the killer kill the other to be protected
Let me ask you this. If there was no desire what so ever to kill the other person, would the other person get killed? No. Because there would be no desire to go through with it.
Specifically for abortion:
- If there was no desire to murder the fetus, then they would keep the child.
- If there was no desire to kill the fetus, they would not issue to terminate a pregnancy.
Main goal: Kill the fetus to "protect" themselves.
Con
#8
Round Summary
For this round, I’ll break this down into separate sections where I will briefly discuss brain development and include a few other rebuttals.
Brain Development
Pro fails to contest my definition of person with a superior one, hence conceding that a fetus is incapable of morality, reason, or sentience.
“Before I get into the rebuttals, as for con's only response, many human beings don't have some of the things that con states.The fetus is their own individual person, they have their own distinctive DNA, they are their own person, not any other thing. They, in the development process do not change to a chicken or fox, they are like said, their own individual person. This doesn't change just because they lack some things that some humans have.”
Using this logic, there is no way a fetus can be considered a person.
“Con does not fully argue their point that was explained above.Fetuses do have brains, which I will later support.I argue that even (especially) babies, child, and adults sometimes lack morality. Obviously, you can not learn morality until you are taught . Do they have the potential to be taught morality? Yes.”
A fetus cannot be compared to a baby, child, or adult. Because a fetus lacks a developed brain that has not generated sentience. Therefore, they currently do not have the capacity for morality.
Capacity - The ability to receive or contain. (dictionary.com)
They do, however, have the potential to develop that capacity.
“"In just the fifth week after conception, the first synapses begin forming in a fetus’s spinal cord. By the sixth week, these early neural connections permit the first fetal movements–spontaneous arches and curls of the whole body–that researchers can detect through ultrasound imaging. Many other movements soon follow–of the limbs (around eight weeks) and fingers (ten weeks), as well as some surprisingly coordinated actions (hiccuping, stretching, yawning, sucking, swallowing, grasping, and thumb-sucking)."I'm not actually sure if scientists have changed such reasoning meaning this might be an uphill battle on when fetus can and can't feel.This is before 14 weeks which means they are killing a person that has a mind, can think, and can feel.”
This is misinterpreting scientific research.
Sentience/Autonomy/Consciousness doesn’t start until between the end of the Second Trimester and the beginning of The Third Trimester.
- Movements like breathing, swallowing, and sucking aren’t until the 16th week. (Too late for an abortion.)
The First Trimester
Con says that the baby’s movements within weeks 1-10 are a sign of life because of its brain and neural activity.
- The brain is too underdeveloped at this point, that it hasn’t formed the individual parts or functions that generate reason or thinking.
- Life at this stage operates on autopilot, so the baby’s body is not its own. It has no autonomy.
- The movements it makes are impulses based on physiological responses. Like the body’s heart rate getting faster after an intense cardio session.
Life is more like that of a self-driving vehicle with pre-programmed responses it generates to certain signals, not an actual person.
Capacity To Feel Pain
“I slightly agree and disagree.It depends how you view pleasure. Let me break it down for pleasure :
- Pleasure in not having the pregnancy
- Pleasure in not having the child
- Pleasure in their pain
Now, since we already addressed this last round, I believe it would be either the first or second one. Maybe both. Though the way i'm using the world "pleasure" may come out confusing."I had great relief that the pregnancy was terminated""I had great relief that that I was not having a child"But I want to dig a bit deeper. I don't think you need to have any level of sadism.For example, one can kill someone but then on the other hand, feel bad about it and have no pleasure. But still killed them, with an intent to kill them.You can kill someone, not wanting them to suffer, but still have an intent on killing them.”
A fetus is incapable of feeling pain until the 28th week. If a doctor were willing to perform an abortion at that point with this knowledge in mind, I might be willing to reconsider the malice definition.
“The science conclusively establishes that a human fetus does not have the capacity to experience pain until after at least 24–25 weeks. Every major medical organization that has examined this issue and peer-reviewed studies on the matter have consistently reached the conclusion that abortion before this point does not result in the perception of pain in a fetus.i, ii, iii, iv, v” 1
So Pro says,
“Let me ask you this. If there was no desire what so ever to kill the other person, would the other person get killed? No. Because there would be no desire to go through with it.Specifically for abortion:
- If there was no desire to murder the fetus, then they would keep the child.
- If there was no desire to kill the fetus, they would not issue to terminate a pregnancy.
Main goal: Kill the fetus to "protect" themselves.”
No, it’s about compromising certain desires by prioritizing which one is more important.
- A 300 lb person may have the desire to lose weight in order to avoid a heart-attack, but they don’t want to eat salads or go to the gym to accomplish this.
The person in this case forces themselves to eat a salad and workout because they realize being healthy is more important than their desire to not eat salad or workout.
I’m pretty sure nobody would argue that this person “desires to eat salad or workout.” The person desires to lose weight, but eating the salad and working out despite not wanting to, are requirements to achieve their actual goal.
Therefore, the main goal is not to “kill the fetus” to protect themselves.
The woman’s main goal is to avoid the responsibility of becoming an unwilling mother by giving birth. Terminating the fetus to reach that goal is just the step that’s required.
If she could’ve prevented the pregnancy by other ways, she would have. Women do not make a habit of using abortion as their main method of birth control. So the woman's main goal is not to "kill the fetus" or "cause it pain." This refutes the malice definition directly.
Most medically performed abortions are also done lawfully.
Round 5
Pro
#9
Alright, it's the last round meaning i'll clear some rebuttals. I don't have enough time for an overall review, but I think my main points have been repeated multiple and multiple times. Even one of my main points were restated.
Rebuttals:
Fetus Development
A fetus cannot be compared to a baby, child, or adult. Because a fetus lacks a developed brain that has not generated sentience. Therefore, they currently do not have the capacity for morality.Capacity - The ability to receive or contain. (dictionary.com)They do, however, have the potential to develop that capacity.
Alright, pro, can a baby understand mortality? No, they cannot until later in development.
Does this mean they aren't human? No.
So, a fetus in this case, can be compared to a baby.
To confirm:
"Around 6 months, babies can recognize their name, and by 12 months they'll start to understand simple, spoken commands"
This is misinterpreting scientific research.Sentience/Autonomy/Consciousness doesn’t start until between the end of the Second Trimester and the beginning of The Third Trimester.
- Movements like breathing, swallowing, and sucking aren’t until the 16th week. (Too late for an abortion.)
I contest con on this idea of "to late for abortion".
Please provide evidence that most countries/states usually do it before this time period of the sixteenth week.
As is, I know some states that go up to the twenty-fourth week. So, with that being said, unless con can contest showing that the majority don't preform before the sixteenth, I would like my contention "Not all doctors proceed abortion on embryo" to continue to be extended.
Further..
I already expected this, however, some move before then. This doesn't apply to every fetus in terms of moving, and is quite common to occur.
Which is later talked about.
Con says that the baby’s movements within weeks 1-10 are a sign of life because of its brain and neural activity.
- The brain is too underdeveloped at this point, that it hasn’t formed the individual parts or functions that generate reason or thinking.
- Life at this stage operates on autopilot, so the baby’s body is not its own. It has no autonomy.
- The movements it makes are impulses based on physiological responses. Like the body’s heart rate getting faster after an intense cardio session.
Life is more like that of a self-driving vehicle with pre-programmed responses it generates to certain signals, not an actual person.
- I already covered reasoning, not even babies have reasoning
- Auto-pilot? The most funny thing about this is how you say "the babies body" not the fetues, but the babies - all our bodies have automatic responses
- Does movements made automatically mean they aren't human? This just proves the point even more, they are like humans. Humans hearts beat without them even trying.
All Humans
^^^ All this said above, all humans have experienced. I'm going to keep trying to make it the point that, all humans went through this process. Unless con can show someone hasn't gone through this process, then it's irrelevant.
Can con prove that fetus are a different species and change race completely after being delivered?
I'm really trying to stress the fact, nobody can change race. Nobody switches. This isn't a complete different race, and the moment they are delivered from their process, means they completely switch to a human. Can foxes become human? Can a human become a fox? No. Same thing applies.
Pain
A fetus is incapable of feeling pain until the 28th week. If a doctor were willing to perform an abortion at that point with this knowledge in mind, I might be willing to reconsider the malice definition.
Pain or not does not mean they aren't human.
Like said before, congenital insensitivity occurs in some people but doesn't mean they aren't human.
Malice
No, it’s about compromising certain desires by prioritizing which one is more important.
- A 300 lb person may have the desire to lose weight in order to avoid a heart-attack, but they don’t want to eat salads or go to the gym to accomplish this.
The person in this case forces themselves to eat a salad and workout because they realize being healthy is more important than their desire to not eat salad or workout.I’m pretty sure nobody would argue that this person “desires to eat salad or workout.” The person desires to lose weight, but eating the salad and working out despite not wanting to, are requirements to achieve their actual goal.
Got it, alright. But not completely..
They might not find it something they want to do, but they still desire to do it because, overall it will help them in their goal.
See how it goes both ways?
Maybe it's not the complete focus, but it's not like it's an accident or she's unaware. She still has the desire.
Even if we went by your terms: The person "forces themself" (even though they have a choice) to kill a fetus because they realize they don't want a child.
What is this to you? It's the desire to kill a fetus, so they don't have a person (child). Even if we flipped it, it's the desire to end a pregnancy and kill a person.
Therefore, the main goal is not to “kill the fetus” to protect themselves.
Let's use your other example.
Main goal: Eat salads and work out in order to "get fit".
Now let's use our main focus.
Main goal: Kill a fetus in order to not have a pregnancy.
If I don't have the desire to get rid of the fetus, I don't have the desire to end the pregnancy.
The woman’s main goal is to avoid the responsibility of becoming an unwilling mother by giving birth. Terminating the fetus to reach that goal is just the step that’s required.
Just a step, doesn't mean that's not part of the goal. Meaning she has the desire to kill the fetus in order to not have a pregnancy.
If she could’ve prevented the pregnancy by other ways, she would have. Women do not make a habit of using abortion as their main method of birth control. So the woman's main goal is not to "kill the fetus" or "cause it pain." This refutes the malice definition directly.Most medically performed abortions are also done lawfully
"She would have", obviously she didn't.
I just waited for con to use that..
Also considering that some abortions are limited to certain conditions, and certain limits of when you can have an abortion, that's not completely true. Some are done out of the time frame, or done for other reasons when not lawful.
Furthermore, since I knew con was going to take that route, is killing a person unlawful in most countries? Yes.. Meaning, it is also against the law to kill them. Abortion may be legal, the process, but the person being killed from the abortion is murder. Abortion is murder.
Thanks con for the practice debate.
No content
Looks like there is nothing here yet
*Pro says that the baby’s movements within weeks 1-10 are a sign of life because of its brain and neural activity.
Alrightly, i'll touch up on that later on. Thanks.
You're confusing gestational development with psychological and physiological development via maturation.
You're arguing against potentiality =/= actuality, which is futile
You're not using the correct definition of malice:
"Malice
The intentional commission of a wrongful act, absent justification, with the intent to cause harm to others; conscious violation of the law that injures another individual; a mental state indicating a disposition in disregard of social duty and a tendency toward malfeasance."
An abortion is not a violation of the law (Pre overturn of RvW, though most states haven't and while some have restricted it, it is still legal). The pregnant girl/woman has no social duty to be the personal incubator for society.
You really have a Mt Everest to climb here with your position. Good luck.
Alright TWS1405_2, I looked at mostly everyone's votes. I'll specifically clear those ideas, from your vote, next round. And hopefully other people's votes.
Thanks for the previous vote.
Mhm.. I'll get to responding later, chill.
FFS, stay on topic.
I agree with Savant. LOL.
I wouldn't be too sure about that. It's already been established that Best.Korea is God and that anyone who disagrees with him is wrong.
Source: Best.Korea
LOL!
Everything I stated in the comments of that debate is factually accurate. It is not a subjective opinion, but rather objective (based on facts).
I take all comments and votes into consideration, and I will yours. though somethings mentioned in the comments are rather not criticizism but opinion based.
You will lose this debate too as you did the other, unless you take the criticism I provided within my vote and the comments section of that previous debate to heart.
Even if you can’t edit the description, you may still specify that Con approves Best.Korea’s change.
I take that back.
Well, I will not accept, however
Please add to abortion definition "when a pregnancy is intentionally ended by human action" or something like that.
You really dont wanna hear "pregnancy can be ended accidentally by falling downstairs".