Instigator / Con
11
1500
rating
4
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#4531
Abortion is NOT murder
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2
After 2 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Savant
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
14
1721
rating
22
debates
100.0%
won
Description
BoP rests on BOTH parties (ie - shared).
DEFINITIONS:
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.
Round 1
Con
#1
INITIAL STATEMENT: I screwed myself by inadvertently choosing CON, when I am wholeheartedly PRO! So, this will be a test of my debate skills to play Devil's Advocate in this exchange. Especially since this is my first formal debate at DART. So, here...we...go.
Savant, I appreciate your acceptance and will look forward to our debate here.
PREAMBLE: As everyone here knows I am pro-choice from conception to 22-24 weeks (ie - fetal viability); therefore, since I messed up on taking the CON position vs the PRO position, I have to debate this from a Devil's Advocate position.
WHAT DOES SCIENCE SAY:
Only two human beings, a male and a female, can create/produce a new human being via procreation. As such, the conception, or the unborn (zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus) is a human being. It is a living human organism at its earliest stage of development and left unfettered it shall develop into a full-fledged human being (capable of surviving without further gestational development) upon birth. The pregnancy is entirely distinct from its host (mother, obviously), in that it has its own DNA/RNA, it is human in origin, and it is a living organism (rather than a mere organ or tissue).
ALL HUMAN BEINGS HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS:
While the unborn differ from born humans, those differences are not relevant. Given time the pregnancy will actualize its potential and become that which it is meant to be, a born living human being with all the legal rights, privileges and equal protection of the laws as any other living human being.
ABORTION IS UNJUST:
The pro-life view is summarized as follows:
- 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 - the intentional killing of a human being in utero - regardless of method - is the unlawful/unjust killing of another human being by another human being. As such, abortion is murder.
MURDER:
According to 18 USC 1111 - Murder, is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.
While a girl or woman may not have intended to get pregnant after having consensual sex, even after UNCONSENSUAL sex, the choice to seek out an abortion is with aforethought and malicly so. They simply do not want to bear the personal, psychological and/or financial responsibility to not only raise a child from birth to 18 years of age but go through the trauma of a pregnancy upon her body. So to dispel all that, they would rather sacrifice their child than their own personal stability and/or physical health. That's malice. That's aforethought.
ABORTION IS MURDER:
Since a pregnancy produces a human being, to end that pregnancy is the murder of a human being. That is the very definition of murder.
CESATION OF HUMAN LIFE:
"A bringing or coming to an end; a ceasing."
An abortion ceases human life, a human being, with intent. Intent being the purposeful decision to end the life of another human life. That cessation of life is an intentional and premeditated choice to end that life. As such, it is murder. The killing of a human being by another human being.
Pro
#2
Framework:
Definitions
The description of the debate makes it very clear what precisely we are debating. The subject of this debate is whether termination of a pregnancy involves killing someone. This debate presupposes the following definitions.
- Abortion: Induced termination of a pregnancy
- Murder: Unlawfully killing a person
- Person/Human being: A human that has been born
Murder is a legal term, not a moral one. A “human being” refers to a person, not simply to anything that is human. 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.
Burdens
Note that I am defending the premise “Abortion is not murder,” not “Abortions are not murder.” Simply put, I must argue that “abortion” and “murder” do not refer to the same concept. Many vegans are Christians, but it does not follow that veganism is Christianity.
Even if the resolution were that “abortions are not murders,” then Con would be arguing that abortions ⊆ murders, or that abortions are a subset of murders. Hence, Con would still need to show that all abortions are murders. But this is largely tangential to what we are debating, which is whether the terms “abortion” and “murder” are synonymous. They’re not.
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.
1. Fetuses are Not Human Beings:
Born
Pregnancy is the stage before a fetus is born. By the agreed-on definition in the description, a fetus is not a human being. Abortion (the termination of a pregnancy) is therefore not murder (killing someone who has been born.)
School Shootings
Many school shootings have occurred. They are murder (the unlawful killing of a born human) but not abortion (the termination of a pregnancy).
Legality
930,160 legal abortions were performed in 2020. Murder must be illegal by definition, hence these abortions were not murder. 9 out of 10 abortions occur before 12 weeks, which are legal in the vast majority of states, particularly the most populous ones. Furthermore, the description makes it clear that we are referring to federal laws (protections of “all persons born or naturalized in the United States”). Fetuses are not born, so terminating a pregnancy is not murder.
2. Lack of Malice Aforethought:
Lack of Consciousness
The vast majority of abortions occur before the development of consciousness. Fetuses behave like cells, not like organisms. It is simply illogical to suggest that terminating an unthinking bundle of cells to help a woman achieve financial stability is motivated by malice, rather it is motivated by the pursuit of happiness, one of the most fundamental pillars of the American dream. The 14th amendment protects the woman who has been born, not every bundle of cells with human DNA.
Bodily Autonomy
Note that forced pregnancy is slavery—being forced to support another person with one’s body. Slavery is banned under the 13th amendment and universally agreed on as evil. Consider the following scenario:
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.
This further supports the point that being forced to support another person with one’s body is slavery. If we do not have rights over our own bodies, then we have no rights at all. Clearly there is no malice aforethought in unplugging oneself from the violinist. Rather, there is simply an expression of bodily autonomy.
Rebuttals:
“All human beings have human rights”
It is not immoral to unplug a brain dead person. Without memories, past experiences, or consciousness, a “human being” is simply a husk. Skin cells are human and have human DNA, yet destroying a skin cell is not murder.
“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.”
Round 2
Con
#3
Again, appreciate the acceptance and willingness to engage in this debate by Pro.
Pro draws the distinction that murder is a legal term, not a moral one. I disagree. Murder can be both a legal term and a moral one too.
MURDER & MORALITY:
Morality is uniquely human, possessed or potentially possessed by every single person on Earth by virtue of their being a member of homo sapiens. Morality is born from an external narrative premised upon two theories: the sacred gift and the social contract. Clearly we should all recognize or acknowledge what the sacred gift theory is, its theological wherein a deity was not pleased with humanity and passed down a moral code of conduct for humans to live by. This moral code began with the 10 Commandments, and one of those commandments is "Thou Shall Not Kill/Murder" (Exodus 20:13) God, or whatever deity you believe in, does not like murder because out of all of His creations, humans were made in his image. "Murder, like all sin, has its beginnings in the human mind (Matthew 15:18 - 19, Mark 7:20 - 23)" And since murder begins in the human mind, it's the very unique morality only human beings possess that keeps humanity from falling backwards into darkness and chaos.
Another theory of morality is the social contract it imposes upon all of human society by the community. Through the moral code via the social contract, laws are made, and culturally acceptable or unacceptable behaviors are dictated. And we all know and accept murder is wrong. Killing another human is wrong. It's immoral. And we are all born with an inherent sense of morality that is molded through life's teachings and personal experiences. Murder may be a legal term, but it is still a moral one too. And abortion is widely considered immoral as well.
Pro discusses Burdens, and this third statement I take issue with:
"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."
This proposition flies in the face of reality. There is no one kind of murder called abortions. Murder comes in various forms, not a single one being exactly the same; moreover, the victims are never exactly the same either. Abortion is only one kind of murder, not all murders are abortion. So, this burden is untenable.
PRO - Fetuses are not human beings:
Correct, they are not [born] human beings, however they are human and living organisms.
- "Fetuses behave like cells, not like organisms. "
This is patently false and is a clear misreading of the source material. It also happens when the quote is taken out of context. Here is full context:
"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.
The correct interpretation, as noted above (second paragraph), is that (human cells) behave like cells, not like organisms, which is exactly what a human zygote, blastocyst, embryo and fetus is: an organism. And from that same cited source by Pro:
"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."
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.
Even the social contract has dictated a law, both state and federal versions, that recognizes the moral value to a pregnancy, regardless of stage of pregnancy, by increasing the punishment and sentencing factors of a defendant who allegedly caused the end of a girl/woman's pregnancy.
PRO - Bodily Autonomy:
The topic of this debate has been agreed upon by both parties, and I fail to see what bodily autonomy has to do with proving abortion is or is not murder. Bodily autonomy is an entirely different matter that falls under the abortion umbrella; it's an argument for another debate/discussion, not this one.
PRO - Rebuttals:
It's nonsensical to compare a healthy pregnancy to a brain-dead individual whose body is being kept biologically alive by extraordinary measures. It's a false equivalency fallacy.
“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.”
Birth is the last stage of gestational development of a viable fetus (i.e. a human being, as affirmed by your own source aforementioned and clarified) that upon birth begins physiological development, or maturation of that same human being, that same living human organism, birthed. The description clarification noted is one of legal connotation that strips the moral value of the living organism, the human being, within the womb until birthed. Then magically upon birth the viable fetus somehow has moral value, never before, yet the theories of morality discussed herein objectively suggest otherwise.
Pro
#4
Framework:
Definitions
This debate deals with murder as a legal term. If murder has multiple definitions, then we ought to use the one specified in the description. Nothing suggests that the resolution pertains to morality; this debate would be more comparable to a “court trial” in which we determine what actions are within the bounds of a particular law. Con’s actions here are a clear motte-and-bailey fallacy—in instigating this debate and selecting definitions, Con claimed that abortion is murder, legally speaking. So their alternate definitions are tangential to this debate.
Con argues that we ought to use a definition of murder based on morality, yet they have ot provided a single source supporting this definition or specified what exactly that definition is. Thievery is immoral—does that make it murder? In contrast, every authoritative source I can find defines murder as a legal term, in accordance with the rules of this debate (1) (2) (3). The term “murder” is similar to the word “felony” in this regard—even if Pro thinks that abortion should fall under the legal definition of murder, it does not.
Burdens
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. If the resolution were that “veganism is not Christianity,” it would not be enough for Con to show that all vegans are Christian—veganism and Christianity would still mean different things. Even if the process of abortion did happen to involve murder, “abortion” and “murder” are still different concepts with different meanings.
Con proposes that abortions ⊆ murder (that all abortions are murder), which will be easy enough to falsify. If even one abortion is not murder, then Con’s framework is shown to be false.
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. Per the agreed-on rules of this debate, “Potentiality =/= Actuality. Never has. Never will.” So Con is alone, even among the pro-life crowd, in arguing that embryos are complex organisms.
“to abort a pregnancy is to kill/murder a human being, which is grossly immoral” / “nonsensical to compare a healthy pregnancy to a brain-dead individual whose body is being kept biologically alive by extraordinary measures. It's a false equivalency fallacy.”
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.
“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 shootings
Murder, 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 Section
Inducing 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.
Round 3
Con
#5
PRO - DEFINITIONS:
There are no "multiple definitions" of murder, only different forms of it. I shouldn't even have to spell it out for Pro: one can be murdered by vehicle, by a stabbing object, by a blunt object, by a firearm, and even by hands, fists and feet. That goes without saying that abortion is also a different form of murder, by medical malpractice under the guise of a lawful medical procedure.
Pro is correct that there was nothing in the resolution pertaining to morality, however it was Pro who brought morality into this debate when he drew the distinction that "murder is a legal term, not a moral one." I disagreed and provided the appropriate rebuttal on point. Therefore, my actions were apropos based in Pro's introduction of morality into this debate in relationship to the intent, purpose and meaning behind the legal term, murder; as such it was not a bait and switch fallacy as Pro claims.
PRO - BURDENS:
Pro states:
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.
Abortion and murder are two different concepts that are not mutually exclusive since they both end the same way: the cessation of innocent human life (i.e. - a living organism, a human being). Can't discuss one without discussing the other.
PRO - HIS ANALYSIS OF MY USE OF HIS CITED SOURCE "fetuses, they behave like cells, not like organisms."
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.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I did not chide Pro for using a pro-life source, but rather his misreading of said source. The "they behave like cells, not like organisms" is directly (and clearly) applied to human cells, not the organism in and of itself: the zygote, the blastocyst, the embryo, the fetus. I couldn't have been any clearer on this fact, and I provided both key paragraphs affirming my interpretation vs Pro's erroneous interpretation.
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.
Pro quoted, as noted above, that a human embryo beginning with the one-cell zygote state - and FORWARD - demonstrate uniquely integrated, organismal behavior. Yet he contradicts this statement by still arguing that killing an embryo is like destroying a skin cell but that is simply not the stated case within the cited source Pro used and quoted. From the zygote stage forward, what comes next? A blastocyst. And like the zygote showing uniquely integrated, organismal behavior, so does the blastocyst. What comes next (moving forward) in the stage of gestational development? An embryo. And just like the stages before it, the embryo shows uniquely integrated, organismal behavior. So Pro is grossly inaccurate in his repeated claim that destroying an embryo, a living organism, is no different than destroying a skin cell.
The potential to display more complex behavior is not the same as actually displaying it.
And yet as outlined by Pro's very source and quoted statements, from the zygote forward the conception is displaying more complex behavior (uniquely integrated, organismal behavior). Pro is confusing the statement of potentiality =/= actuality within the context of abortion and this debate where one has the burden to establish that what is in fact being murdered by an abortion is a living human organism - i.e., a human being.
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.
I stand by my position. 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. Period.
“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.
Quoting out of context fallacy. Here is the full statement:
- 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.
I may have failed to properly convey that which I was trying to convey here, so I will try to make it clearer. What I meant to impart is that if left to its own devices of gestational development (realizing its potential), the fetus will eventually be born (actuality). Pro is clearly using the strawman fallacy in order to make absurd semantics arguments which should likewise be dismissed and not counted when voting.
“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.
I do not disagree with the definition in the description of the debate, as I provided them. However, in using the pro-life source that you did, it provided a medically backed definition of what the living human organism is given its uniquely integrated, organismal behavior - i.e., a human being. Is Con not permitted to use the material Pro provides in contesting the definition(s) used herein, even when introduced by Pro?
“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.
Quoting out of context, yet again. Con did not drop this point. Pro introduced morality into this debate and continues to address same with various red herring/false equivalency examples (the violinist attached to one's body, the brain-dead person and pulling the plug, so on and so forth).
School shootingsMurder, but not abortion. This point has been dropped by Con.
It was addressed by Con, not dropped. It was a false equivalency and red herring fallacy. Nothing more need be said about it.
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.
Bodily autonomy =/= anything to do with malice aforethought.
Bodily autonomy has nothing to do with proving abortion is or is not murder.
These strawman, red herring, and false equivalency arguments only serve to weaken your argued position, not Con's.
The debate is centered on proving whether or not the act of abortion is murder. It is not about a woman's right to bodily autonomy.
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.
The source Con provided established how and why theology was one of 3 sources of theory behind morality. In fact, it was one of the very first codes of moral conduct for all of humanity. All other theories are a derivative of the commandment, "Thou Shall not Kill/Murder." And yes, God has killed children in the Bible, that is neither here nor there; but more important an entirely different discussion unrelated to this debate at hand.
“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.
Context fallacy. What does fetuses not paying taxes have to do with the price of tea in China?
An abortion kills a living human organism, and per your cited sourced aforementioned herein, that living human organism is also synonymously defined as a human being. Therefore, an abortion kills a human being.
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.
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. C-Sections save lives, abortions do not.
Pro
#6
Framework:
Definitions
Murder 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.
Burdens
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.
Even under Con’s framework, it’s clear that terminating a pregnancy does not always involve murder. (By the definitions in the description, it never does.)
1. Fetuses are Not Human Beings:
Born
Per 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 Cells
Con 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.
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. Clearly killing a human being is not always grossly immoral. A human being without memories, consciousness, experiences, or relationships is a husk, not something of moral importance.
“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:
“Bodily autonomy =/= anything to do with malice aforethought.”
Con is essentially conceding this point by refusing to address it. Abortion is motivated by the desire to protect one’s own health, not by malice. Malice involves the desire to cause pain, but fetuses in early stages of development are not conscious and cannot feel pain. So abortion is motivated by the desire for financial security and bodily autonomy, not by the desire to cause pain.
Unplugging oneself from the violinist is not motivated by malice. Neither is abortion.
3. “MURDER & MORALITY”:
“All other theories are a derivative of the commandment, "Thou Shall not Kill/Murder."”
Secular humanists provide alternative moral frameworks. Specifically, I’m suggesting the harm principle, since it accounts for both liberty and the prevention of bad things. I’m not saying that this commandment hasn’t inspired moral frameworks, I’m saying there’s no reason to accept it and apply it to fetuses. Being biblical doesn’t make something moral.
“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.”
Murder
I already pointed out that the vast majority of abortions are legal. They also don’t involve killing someone who has been born. Hence, not murder.
Round 4
Con
#7
PRO - Framework:
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.
Once again (redundantly), Pro brought the matter of morality into this debate, not I. Since he did so, it became fair game to address his factually inaccurate statement regarding same. Pro opened the can of worms, Pro needs to accept/own that fact.
PRO - Burdens:
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.
You cannot discuss one without the other within the context of this debate. Nowhere in the description, let alone agreed upon by Con, was this debate EVER about "but whether the terms “abortion” and “murder” are the same thing." Talk about moving the goalposts. This debate was never about each respective term meaning the exact same thing. Lastly, the false equivalency fallacy comparing an abortion to "A man can be a husband and a brother..." is absurd and irrelevant to the intent and purpose of the prescribed debate.
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.
And yet Pro interjected a source that contradicts not only the definitions of the debate, but also the definitions and position argued thereupon by Pro. That source they used made it crystal clear that the living human organism, not human cells, is [a] human being. That's from Pro's source.
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.
This nonsensical strawman demonstrates Pro's continued lack of comprehension of their own source that contradicts them, and more than adequately pointed out; as such I resubmit this glaring point that Pro "misses the forest for the trees here":
- "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.
Comparing human reproduction to plants and insects, *sigh* just more false equivalency fallacies ad nauseum.
“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.
Con is arguing from a position of Devil's Advocate. As such, it is incumbent upon Con to contest the definitions and assertions agreed upon as new information is discovered (like the source Pro used) that contradicts the provided definitions of the described debate.
“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.
Con never introduced morality, Pro did as proven above with the cited receipt. Morality is within the scope of this debate, as it is an innate fact of debate/discussion of abortion.
The bolden portion of Pro's statement is patently false. The title is Abortion is not murder. Abortion is terminating a pregnancy PRE birth, not upon someone who has been born. This just demonstrates Pro's further lack of comprehension of that which they are reading/consuming and using within their rebuttals.
“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.
Quoting out of context followed by nonsensical (irrelevant banter - i.e., strawman fallacy) loses not only the interest of your opponent, but also the reader/voter.
“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.
Con appeals to factual reality. A pregnancy is a living organism from the single cell zygote going forward, per Pro's own cited source. And also noted within that cited source, it is clearly denoted and affirmed by professionals that a living human organism = a human being. Clearly Pro is regretting using that source and is backpedaling in various ways to dispel that fact. Moreover, I am not appealing to legality but rather reality. One is a living organism; one is a dead organism with the husk being kept functional by extraordinary means. Without such means and a functioning brain, that husk would cease to function.
“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.
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. The makes it clear that the individual must be alive, conscious, etc. to be [a] human being. A corpse is not a human being. That's just common sense.
“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.
A non-sequitur? Pro is the one who brought up the fact that a fetus cannot feel pain and interact with the world. I discredited this position with cited sources.
2. Lack of Malice Aforethought:
Already addressed and debunked.
3. “MURDER & MORALITY”:
Already addressed and debunked.
“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.
Already addressed and debunked.
“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.”
Already addressed and debunked. Also, Pro is using a backpedaling semantics argument here with the bolded portion.
Pro
#8
Framework:
Definitions
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.
Burdens
Con 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. I’ve given a number of examples emphasizing this distinction, which essentially go unaddressed. Even if every husband in the world is a father, parenthood is not marriage. They are different (if related) concepts.
Despite challenging part of my burdens analysis, Con does not dispute my statement that “Con must establish that abortion ⊆ murder, or that all abortions are 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:
Born / Human Cells
I remind voters that the resolution defines a human being as “every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive.”
I implore voters to look at the facts presented in my source and my arguments stemming from them, rather than the opinions of the person who created it. Presenting sources from across the aisle is a common tactic in debate to show that an opponent’s premises do not support their conclusion. Despite those opinions, 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.)
3. “MURDER & MORALITY”:
Extend.
Extend everything else that Con claims to have debunked. I addressed everything Con had to say on those matters.
Round 5
Con
#9
This is my final response in this debate. Thank you again, Pro, for accepting. It has been an interesting exercise playing DA.
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.
Murder is unjust, which is why it makes murder unlawful. Murder is both unjust and unlawful. Also, 'unjust' is not a moral term. A synonym of unjust is wrong, "contrary to conscience or morality or law." All Pro is doing here is making a failed semantics argument. Bottom line, I never used the term moral/morality, Pro did. And in the context in which he provided it, I disagreed with the assertion made and explained why. Several cited sources were provided as to the theoretical and secular origins of morality and how it is very much a part of this debate concerning abortion and murder. The very question of the morality of abortion is central to whether or not it is murder; and the morality of murder is central to whether or not it is unjust.
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.
No, we were never debating abortion and murder as concepts, but rather as action. An abortion is an action that terminates a pregnancy. Murder is an action that terminates another human being's life. Neither are "concepts," but actions premised in reality with the same end result. Death of a living human organism, a human being. Pro is the one who brought this nonsensical "concepts" tripe into this debate, not I. Just look at the definitions for each in the description of the debate. Each term is an action that ends in cessation of life. They're not concepts: A general idea or understanding of something.
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.
Con has provided a framework, it's in the description of the debate. Definitions. Burdens. I didn't see the need to waste characters just to repeat the same definitions and obvious burden(s). And if every abortion ends the life of a living human organism, a human being, then all abortions are murder. Pro has failed to demonstrate where any one single abortion failed to meet the definition of murder.
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.
Con did not drop this, Con proved that Pro did not comprehend what he read. In R1 Pro stated: "Fetuses behave like cells, not like organisms. " This is patently inaccurate given the full reading of the material sourced, and the two relevant paragraphs cited in R2 demonstrating that lack of understanding of what Pro read. A fetus is not chaotic and disorganized, since a fetus acts in "a uniquely integrated, organismal behavior" "that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells." Pro keeps/consistently arguing the author's point that human cells act in "a chaotic, disorganized manner. They behave like cells, not like organisms," attributing this explanation to the zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus when in fact it is the exact opposite.
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.
Pro is creating a strawman fallacy here. The Ten Commandments were specifically cited in support of the basis of humanities concept of morality, specifically the moral code/commandment of "Thou Shall Not Kill/Murder." Con does not need to concede that God has killed men, women AND children over the history of the Bible. The point of the citation was central to morality, and how killing/murder became a part of the moral code of humanity. Pro is grossly mistaken in his conclusion here.
“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.
Pro is creating a strawman here, as Con never argued "that complex organism ought to have rights." This is just yet another example of Pro's inability to comprehend that which Pro reads, and then applying it logically in their rebuttals. It's just one strawman argument after another. Further, Pro is the side that has brought in example after example of different organisms, falsely equivalating them to living human organisms, which is the subject of this debate, not other organisms. Plants and insects don't live by a moral code, have abortions let alone commit conscience acts of murder. Only human beings do.
“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.
Quoting out of context, yet again. When new information is learned that contradicts the definitions provided, that new information must be injected into the debate to augment what is learned and understood. I mean really, does a scientist stick to one procedure outlined in the study without considering alternate procedures that may provide a better result of the experiment? No, they try other things as a part of the testing/falsification of the process. Same applies in a debate. Sure each side may agree upon a generic baseline of definitions, etc. but along the way, when each side does research in prep for their rebuttal, new info may be attained that contradicts not only the generic baseline definitions, but also other definitions asserted by the other side. So no, it is not bad conduct. It is proper conduct.
“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.
Pro knows full well that Con established this debate with the intent of being Pro. So as Con I have to debate this from the Devil's Advocate position, which means I have to contest the proposition put forth to the best of my abilities. Pro seems to have an issue with that fact.
“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.
School shootings are another kind of murder that has absolutely no relevance to this debate concerning ABORTION.
“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.
And yet science, which includes your own cited source, disagrees with both the generic definitions of this debate and your claimed assertions of what a human being refers to. Again, when new information comes to light during research in preparation for a rebuttal that contradicts both the generic definitions of a debate and the other side's position, as the opposite side, it is my duty to put forth that information to contradict both. Is that not the point of a debate, to provide the better argument with all available sources at their disposal.
“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.
False equivalency fallacy, yet again.
“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.
Shifting the goal posts with this quote taken out of context, yet again. A pregnancy from zygote going forward is a living organism, hence a human being. Just because the law doesn't recognize and extend those protections of the law doesn't mean the living organism is not [a] human being by its very nature.
“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.
Non-Sequitur.
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.)
False equivalency fallacy, yet again.
Thank you, Savant, for your participation.
Pro
#10
Framework:
Definitions
Con defines murder as “unjust and unlawful.” Therefore, if something is just or lawful, it cannot be murder. Con said, “Con has provided a framework, it's in the description of the debate. Definitions. Burdens.” Voters should therefore hold Con to these definitions.
Burdens
Extend most of what I said here. Death may result from termination of a pregnancy; even if some abortions result in death (or even in murder) that does not make “abortion” and “murder” synonymous concepts. I illustrated this distinction through various analogies, all of which Con has dropped.
Con only contests part of this analysis but does not contest that they must show that abortions ⊆ murder (or as Con claims, “all abortions are murder”). If any counterexample exists, abortion is not murder.
Are abortions legal?
Murder is defined in the description as an unlawful killing of a human who has been born. Since abortions end a pregnancy, none of them fit this definition. Hundreds of thousands of legal abortions occur every year. Con has not disputed this throughout the entire debate. If abortion is legal, it cannot be murder.
Are abortions unjust?
Con does not dispute that memories, consciousness, experiences, relationships, etc. are what make a person valuable. Since a fetus has none of these in most cases of abortion, abortion is not murder. Con repeatedly argued that a fetus is complex, therefore killing them is wrong. Now that Con has conceded that being complex doesn’t make an organism morally important, they’ve dropped their entire argument about abortions being immoral.
Do abortions involve malice aforethought?
Since Con said in R1 that murder requires malice aforethought, they must show that every termination of a pregnancy is motivated by malice. But forced pregnancy is slavery, and abortion is motivated by freedom and financial stability, as I showed already. Not by malice. Also, con drops Cesarean Sections, which are not motivated by malice.
Sources:
Source points should be awarded to the side that best supports their side of the resolution with outside evidence and analysis of that evidence. Murder is being defined here in legal terms, and Con must show that all abortions are illegal. None of Con’s sources, or even the way Con tries to use my source, help them to establish this. All of their source use and analysis is off-topic. In contrast, I’ve given a number of sources supporting my side of the resolution. Voters, award source points to the side that stayed on topic and used outside evidence regarding the legality of abortion, not in support of off-topic tangents.
Conduct:
Voters should penalize unsportsmanlike or uncivil behavior with loss of conduct points. Con has displayed poor conduct numerous times in 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”
Conclusion
Recall the burdens I proposed at the beginning of the debate, as well as the alternatives proposed by my opponent. It’s clear that abortions and murder refer to completely different concepts, since pregnancy occurs before birth and murder, per the definitions in the description, can only occur after birth. Furthermore, I have demonstrated that !(abortions ⊆ murder), or that abortions are not a subset of murder. Hence, the resolution is affirmed.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Because of the definitions, both Pro and Con are at a natural stalemate when arguing their positions.
Pro argues that a fetus is human and that the life inherently holds value because of the potential it holds and that abortion snuffs out that potential forever.
Con counters by arguing Pro is arguing for a moral interpretation rather than a legal one, as established by the resolution. But I’ll disregard that argument because Pro objects by stating it’s practically the same.
Con argues that a human being is separate from a human and that potentiality is not the same as actuality. That a fetus functions more like a cell than an organism, but Pro refutes this by stating that Con is quote-mining. The reason abortion is not identical to exterminating the life of a coma patient is because the coma patient has memories, experiences which give its life value.
The arguments are slipped slightly in Con’s favor, but Pro makes it even by arguing that a fetus is a human being, since birth is the final stage of gestation. This makes arguments a tie.
Both sides provided great sources, so that’s also a tie.
Spelling & grammar are even from both sides, so it’s a tie.
Neither side displayed bad conduct, so it’s a tie.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
This debate was heavily skewed in favor of pro, making it practically unwinnable for con due to its lopsided nature. Right at the beginning of the debate framework, con asserted that murder is a term strictly confined within the legal framework. Consequently, pro's sole task to secure victory was to present evidence of legal abortions, a feat that was rather easily and effectively accomplished.
Despite the formidable odds, con displayed commendable effort throughout the debate.
Alright, can't say I've heard from either of those accounts or from anyone else in an attempt to get you banned, but I'll keep that in mind.
So...it appears that the former "RationalMadMan" user is making any and all efforts to get me banned from DART.
He/She/It/They have other "alt" accounts: John OO and jamgiller
He challenged me to a debate, I accepted, and shortly thereafter he declined and then claimed to be too busy in life to engage anyone or participate at DART. Appears he is still watching and following.
Just a heads up in case he makes efforts to get me banned, suspended, or what have you under obvious FALSE pretenses.
"Thanks to you as well! Thought you did a good job."
Appreciate that; and likewise, for sure.
Thanks to you as well! Thought you did a good job.
"Skimmed this: I don’t foresee any way around the definitions which makes the resolution inherently true."
~ Could you be anymore cryptic?
Thank you for taking the time and energy to engage me in this debate.
Gratitude.
Thank you both for voting, and your follow-up comments.
Had I not screwed myself on position (I meant to be the opposite of what I was), I would have won this debate hands down.
Alas, I had to play Devil's Advocate. I did my best, but I knew I would not win.
S.L. - yes, I know I would have wiped the floor with RationalMadMan easily.
Thank you, G.P. for the kudos and advice. Much appreciated.
I can 100% say TWS would’ve won against RationalMadMan on his first attempt if they debated like they said they would.
With enough experience, TWS could contend with and possibly beat Novice_ll.
You did really well, it's just you have to pay attention to definitions and resolutions or you can accidentally create a very difficult debate skewed to one side.
Thanks for voting!
Skimmed this: I don’t foresee any way around the definitions which makes the resolution inherently true.
Cool, it's finally finished. I'll read this today and probably vote tomorrow.
Initials and a combinations of numbers heard on a movie that stuck.
If you don't mind me asking, what is TWS1405 a reference to? I've always wondered.
Sure would be nice if more than one eligible person would provide a legitimate vote. After all, this was my first debate here. And I forced myself to play Con (devil’s advocate)!!!
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.
Please vote!
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.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Good luck.
"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.
Edit:
Nevermind. I guess your a pro-lifer now!