Abortion is NOT murder
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
BoP rests on BOTH parties (ie - shared).
Abortion: induced termination of a pregnancy
Murder: when one human being unlawfully kills another human being.
Human Being: A person.
Person: shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development (1 US Code 8); a human being considered as capable of having legal rights and being charged with duties.
ESTABLISHMENT OF LEGAL RIGHTS:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States...shall be bestowed all the rights, privileges and equal protections of the law and shall not be deprived thereof without due process of law (14th Amendment).
BIOLOGICAL FACTS OF REALITY:
A pregnancy is gestational development of a potential human being.
Potentiality =/= Actuality. Never has. Never will.
Birth and thereafter is the biological and physiological maturation of an actual human being.
LEGAL FACTS OF REALITY:
A pregnancy has no legal rights, privileges and/or equal protection(s) of the law.
The fetal homicide laws, both state and federal, designate the pregnancy, regardless of stage, is merely a 'legal victim' of the act, not an actual human being. This law is nothing more than an enhancement charge to ensure the offender spends more time incarcerated. Nothing more.
- The unborn is a human being.
- All human beings have human rights, which includes the right to not be unjustly and intentionally killed.
- Therefore, the unborn human being as human rights.
- Abortion: Induced termination of a pregnancy
- Murder: Unlawfully killing a person
- Person/Human being: A human that has been born
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous.
"Hence, with a shared BoP, Con must establish that all abortions are murder and that all murders are abortions. If even one abortion is not murder, or if one murder is not abortion, even hypothetically speaking, then these two words refer to different concepts."
- "Fetuses behave like cells, not like organisms. "
"Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.In contrast to human embryos, human cells are alive and, under some circumstances, they can assemble into primitive tissues and structures. Yet under no circumstances do mere human cells produce the kind of coordinated interactions necessary for building a fully integrated human body. They do not produce tissues in a coherent manner and do not organize them so as to sustain the life of the entity as a whole. They produce tumors; i.e., parts of the human body in a chaotic, disorganized manner. They behave like cells, not like organisms.
"Organisms are “living beings.” Therefore, another name for a human organism is a “human being”; an entity that is a complete human, rather than a part of a human."
“a pregnancy produces a human being”Birth produces a human being, not pregnancy. The description clarifies that a human being is “every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.”
Con says that abortion is one kind of murder, but even if abortions are murder, we are debating whether “abortion” and “murder” refer to the same concept.
1. Fetuses are Not Human Beings:“they are human and living organisms”Con chides me for using a pro-life source, but the bias here helps my case. The evidence I’m giving is accepted by even those who are pro-life. It’s not disputed.
I can reject the opinions of the source on what counts as a “human being,” but still agree with some of what it has to say about embryos. The source states that “Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior.” Embryos don’t. Killing an embryo is like destroying a skin cell.
The potential to display more complex behavior is not the same as actually displaying it.
Memories, consciousness, experiences, relationships, etc. are what make murder harmful. In accordance with the harm principle, destroying human tissue is not inherently harmful unless it involves harming a conscious being with memories, consciousness, experiences, or relationships, etc.
“realizing its potential - birth”Potentiality is not actuality. If you ordered chicken at a restaurant, you would be very disappointed if they gave you an egg instead. Children cannot drive cars just because they are “potential adults.” Sperm are potential human beings, but it does not follow that people are obligated to have children.
- This is objectively factually accurate. Since the pregnancy is an organism, a living being, human in origin and developing - realizing its potential - birth, the pregnancy, regardless of stage is a human being. Therefore, to abort a pregnancy is to kill/murder a human being, which is grossly immoral.
“a human being”Per the agreed-on definitions for this debate -> shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development (1 US Code 8); a human being considered as capable of having legal rights and being charged with duties. Do not allow Con to commit a motte-and-bailey fallacy. Instead, hold them to the definitions they gave in the description.
“magically upon birth the viable fetus somehow has moral value”Recall that we are discussing legality, not morality. Furthermore, a fetus cannot think, feel pain, form connections, etc. while someone who has been born can. Con drops this point.
School shootingsMurder, but not abortion. This point has been dropped by Con.
2. Lack of Malice Aforethought:“I fail to see what bodily autonomy has to do with proving abortion is or is not murder”Con conceded in R1 that murder requires malice aforethought, and simply withdrawing bodily support for someone is not motivated by malice aforethought. Con has not explained why women should be forced to support someone with their body against their will. Abortions are typically motivated by a desire for financial stability, not malice. For this reason, they’re also not immoral—Con drops that entirely, and it’s the main point of the thought experiment.
3. “MURDER & MORALITY”:“10 Commandments”The 10 commandments refer to the laws of Ancient Israel, which do not apply in the United States today. God kills babies all the time in the bible, so it’s not clear why we should use the Bible as a source of morality.
“social contract”Fetuses do not pay taxes, which are required under a social contract. Furthermore, the purpose of a moral code is to prevent harm from occurring. Since abortions do not kill a conscious being, no harm is occurring. In contrast, pregnancy comes with all sorts of medical risks for the woman.
Cesarean SectionInducing delivery via a cesarean section is not immoral, and it involves terminating (or ending) a pregnancy (hence abortion by the agreed-on definition). So clearly, Con’s claim that abortions are immoral is false.
DefinitionsMurder is strictly being discussed here as a legal term. The description defines it as “when one human being unlawfully kills another human being.” Con is attempting to move the goalposts by bringing up morality.
Con concedes that abortion and murder are two different concepts. We are not debating whether something can be abortion and murder, but whether the terms “abortion” and “murder” are the same thing. They are not. A man can be a husband and a brother, but it does not follow that husbands=brothers. Your husband is not your brother. Extend the analogy on veganism and most of my other analysis here, which Con has dropped.
1. Fetuses are Not Human Beings:BornPer the agreed-on definitions of this debate, a person is someone who has been “born alive.” Termination of a pregnancy does not involve killing someone who has been born.
Value of Human CellsCon misses the forest for the trees here. Cells and development of cells is insignificant without consciousness—tumors have cells and develop, but removing tumors is not murder. The “integrated” behavior of a fetus is no more significant than the functionality of cells or the ability of bacteria to multiply. The source claims that zygotes are complex (this is the bias I am referring to), but this is contradictory to the evidence it provides. It admits that cells are nonfunctional because they cannot be utilized and are non complex. The statement “zygote produces increasingly complex tissues,” admits that initially, these features aren’t complex. They can’t be utilized without consciousness and they only serve as parts of the final human, similarly to cells.
- "Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.
- In contrast to human embryos, human cells are alive and, under some circumstances, they can assemble into primitive tissues and structures. Yet under no circumstances do mere human cells produce the kind of coordinated interactions necessary for building a fully integrated human body. They do not produce tissues in a coherent manner and do not organize them so as to sustain the life of the entity as a whole. They produce tumors; i.e., parts of the human body in a chaotic, disorganized manner. They behave like cells, not like organisms.
Even if I grant that embryos are complex organisms, plants and insects are complex organisms, yet killing them is not murder. So Con’s argument here isn’t supporting their case.
“a human being”I don’t have to agree with every statement in a source to use some of its evidence. I already explained how the source being biased against me makes the evidence more credible in supporting my case. Regardless of what definition the source uses, the definition of human being, in the context of this debate, is someone who has been born. Con is attempting to shift the goalposts.
“Pro introduced morality into this debate”Voters can see that Con introduced morality by bringing up human rights and unjust killings. I only mentioned it in explaining that morality is not within the scope of this debate. To be sporting, I’ve also shown that abortion is not immoral, so Con’s case fails on that front as well. But the actual point of the debate is about whether termination of a pregnancy involves illegally killing someone who has been born.
“false equivalency and red herring fallacy”A lot of murders are not abortions. Therefore, the terms “abortion” and “murder” refer to different concepts. This is neither of the fallacies that Con lists, it’s simply upholding my side of the resolution.
“Comparing an abortion (murder of a living organism, a human being) to that of a brain (legally) dead human being is an apples to oranges argument.”Con appeals to legality here, which just reaffirms everything I’ve been saying. Con is essentially conceding my main point here—that memories, consciousness, experiences, or relationships are what make someone morally valuable.
“to abort a pregnancy is to kill/murder a human being, which is grossly immoral”A brain-dead person fits our definition of a human being, yet unplugging them is not immoral.
“And a 24+ week fetus can feel pain, interact with its mother and outside stimuli.”This is essentially a non-sequitur, since the vast majority of abortions occur before then, and Con’s framework is that abortions ⊆ murder (i.e. abortion is necessarily murder, so all abortions must be murder). Even if some abortions are murder (none are, since we are discussing legality), most of them aren’t, and this supports my side of the resolution.
2. Lack of Malice Aforethought:
3. “MURDER & MORALITY”:
“Context fallacy. What does fetuses not paying taxes have to do with the price of tea in China?”Fetuses are not citizens or participants in society. They are potential members of society. Hence, the social contract does not apply to them. Extend that no harm is being done by killing an unconscious being.
“Cesarean sections are done if there are vaginal and/or pelvis complications necessitating a C section. They do not "involve terminating (or ending) a pregnancy.”Cesarean sections induce birth, which is the end of a pregnancy. Hence, “induced termination of a pregnancy.”
Con brought morality into this debate in R1 by describing murder as “unjust.” That’s a moral term. I specifically said in R1 that this is a legal debate. Regardless of who brought up moral terms, it’s clear that the resolution is addressing legality, not morality, since Con defined murder based on legality. Voters should hold Con to the definitions they established in instigating this debate.
BurdensCon makes an argument from incredulity without addressing the points in support of my burdens analysis. We are debating abortion and murder (concepts), not whether individual abortions overlap with individual cases of murder.
Since Con has provided no framework of their own, voters should hold them to this at the very least. If there exists any number of abortions that are not murder, I have met my BoP.
1. Fetuses are Not Human Beings:I argued that fetuses are indeed chaotic and disorganized because they are not functional as human beings—consciousness is required for a collection of cells to have any utility. Con drops this and repeats that the author of my source is pro-life—if anything, this makes my use of the source more credible, since the author is biased against me.
If we're holding each side to the opinions present in that person's sources, then Con's citation of the Bible means they must support the killing of children, since God does so and the Bible considers this to be just. This negates Con's moral argument entirely.
“Comparing human reproduction to plants and insects, *sigh* just more false equivalency fallacies ad nauseum.”Con is the one arguing that complex organisms ought to have rights—clearly, that’s a bad standard to use. If someone proposes a universal standard, they cannot cry “false equivalency!” every time a counterexample is pointed out.
“incumbent upon Con to contest the definitions and assertions agreed upon”No, because that would be bad conduct. Opinions from an article are not “new information,” they are simply indicative of bias. Con is the one trying to contradict the rules agreed upon—Pro is adhering to the rules of this debate. Note that Con admits to agreeing to these definitions.
“Abortion is terminating a pregnancy PRE birth, not upon someone who has been born.”Hence, abortion is not murder based on the agreed-to definitions in the description.
“Quoting out of context followed by nonsensical (irrelevant banter - i.e., strawman fallacy)”I’ll simply reiterate that school shootings are murders, but not abortions. This negates my opponent’s case.
“a living human organism = a human being”Not by the agreed-on definitions of this debate. As I pointed out earlier, the meaning of a multi-word term is not literally equivalent to the sum of its parts—idioms like “basket case” or “seeing the light” are a good example of this. In the context of this debate, a human being refers to a specific kind of human. Specifically, one who has been born.
“A pregnancy is a living organism from the single cell zygote going forward”As are plenty of farm animals. Plants are living organisms as well. Con keeps repeating that a fetus is a living organism, but this does not make the fetus morally significant.
“A brain-dead person does not fit the definition of a (living) human being with all the rights, privileges and equal protections of the law.”Con concedes that equal protection of the law is required for a human being. Abortion is legal, so abortion is not murder.
“Pro is the one who brought up the fact that a fetus cannot feel pain and interact with the world.”This is true in most cases of abortion. Con conceded that they must show all abortions to be murder. A single counterexample decimates their case.
2. Lack of Malice Aforethought:Extend. Con conceded in R1 that murder requires malice aforethought. Not wanting to be enslaved is not immoral, so this decimates Pro’s moral argument (which was already irrelevant to this debate.)
- Attempting to change agreed-on definitions
- Ad hominem attacks: “his nonsensical strawman demonstrates Pro's continued lack of comprehension”
- Accusing me of fallacies without justification: “*sigh* just more false equivalency fallacies ad nauseum”
- Referring to my argument as “nonsensical and irrelevant banter”
- Assuming my motivations: “Pro is regretting using that source and is backpedaling”
Please vote, if you have time.
You may like voting on this one.
I think you both did really great here.
Would you guys like to join my Tournament?
You may register as a participant or spectator (Judge.).
Oh hell yeah I’m gonna vote!
I couldn’t wait for the opportunity.
In TWS’s defense, I once made a debate and accidentally assigned myself the wrong side.
I just happened to get lucky that my opponent forfeited.
Savant is like that Final Boss with no health bar.
I know I will lose this deabte, no matter how hard I try...because the facts are against me.
I accept that.
Having said that, being my first formal debate at DART, being devil's advocate, it a great exercise. Especially in humility.
I did reply.
Apparently, you have no self-control in keeping our panties (err...G-string) on.
Boy hush I ain't worried bout you thats why im LAUGHING because you aint saying shit. How bout you reply to my comment on the other debate pussy
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Intellectual coward that you so clearly are.
"I tried to warn you."
yeah, I admit I fucked up. So, I better own it.
I will restart this debate just for you and your "dumbass," but instead of having to argue as devil's advocate, I will be PRO and you can be CON. You can then take your best shot. Pissant.
I tried to warn you.
DAMNIT!!!!! I selected the wrong option.
First debate setup. My bad.
Guess I will have to first test my skills playing devil's advocate then.
Can't wait for Savant to destroy this dumbass in this debate!
As con your arguing that it is murder. Is that what you want? Otherwise I would fix it.
Nevermind. I guess your a pro-lifer now!