Abortion is the murder of an innocent human life

RFV
Hm, jamesrobertjoseph a bit late in making argument that murder is unjust killing (R5), and not many words used to address it.
Though I don't find Barney's murder arguments highly compelling.

jamesrobertjoseph 'personhood arguments lacking,
'Yes personhood subjective,
But most people don't think a rock is a person,
jamesrobertjoseph needed make more arguments on why a zygote,
Is a more blurred case than a rock,
Though for some people it's not, and the blurring comes later,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensoulment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_human_personhood
. .
Eh, even if one is not religious, not believe in soul,
Even such people believe in sentience, often, at least 'act like do, practical,
Just replace soul with some other word.

But I am rambling,
I'm just going to vote Barney, as throughout debate,
Their points were more fully developed, more pronged.
I still don't think it was 'convincing,
But it was a better effort and result.

jamesrobertjoseph points were more focused on single prong of new existence,
But they did not fully develop this prong.

They 'did blunt some of Barney's prongs a bit, but not 'consistently.

Various thoughts of Voter during debate.
jamesrobertjoseph
Description/R1
Makes an assertion, states some facts.
Not enough facts to prove the assertions yet though.

Barney R1
I'd say murder 'can be a legal term,
But even if a judge or jury rules an individual did not murder some other individual,
Might be people still dead certain on the view that it was murder,
And I mean full adult individuals with full mental capacity and activity.
Course this is 'my arguement.

jamesrobertjoseph argues personhood is subjective in R2,

And in R3 says laws should be objective,
This doesn't quite make sense to me,
But Barney in R2 differentiates justifiable homicide and murder,
As well as the homeless example.
. . . There are many different 'laws though, differentiating types of killing,
So Barney's claim isn't really 'objective.

Though jamesrobertjoseph 'wants to claim murder objective as well.
. . .
Hm, well, subjective voter is all there is to be swayed.
. . . . .

Barney R1
Makes agreement about separated human body parts not being another person,
If they had more words, they might make further agreement about intelligence lacking,

jamesrobertjoseph R2 notes that the fetus contains 'different cells, implying new person.
Course people about this argue the new cells still not a new 'person, even if blueprints.
'Personhood seems a bit tricky though.

Barney R2
Makes interesting agreement about hand having potential to be a new person,
Twins 'do exist after all,
As well as clones, I am reminded of The House of the Scorpion by Nancy Farmer.

My Thoughts Currently
I don't think Barney murder agreement is strong,
More relevant is whether fetus is considered person or not.

jamesrobertjoseph R3
Is mistaken in agreement that human hand cannot become-
Hm, I don't actually understand cloning. . .
Googling, Hm, I 'think you can clone something using blood,
Hm Barney R3 video, process involved putting the dna into an empty egg and electricity,
This is a step 'behind of fetus,. . .
Though of course Barney made this agreement addressing jamesrobertjoseph's agreement of potential.
. . .
'Potential varies though.
Ink and paper 'could be a painting,
Half drawn painting 'could be a fully finished painting,
People probably more upset if you take away the half finished painting while in the process though, features, 'life, 'personality are in that half painting.
Hm, regaurdless.

jamesrobertjoseph R4 does not adequately address cloning,
Though their words seem to imply that if I made a clone of myself it would still be me and not a separate individual.

Further side thought,
Debate description makes note of zygote,
Rather than say an unborn an hour from birth.

Barney R3
Agreement that if fetuses are people, they are responsible for their choices, is not very convincing,
But jamesrobertjoseph 'is having trouble addressing 'all points made in debate.

Also I am not convinced of it being criminal to care for ones children,
But it's a short word debate.

jamesrobertjoseph R4
Hm, interesting agreement about new human life,
But I'm not sure the new life 'matters,
As we don't think a hand cut off is sentient,
Maybe people certain zygote not sentient,
Though I'm still not a fan of abortion myself, at all.

jamesrobertjoseph R5
Ah, now addressing the differences between a zygote and a severed hand.
But short on words, short on convincement.

Barney R5
Eh, newborn baby needs external resources to be an adult, eh 'adults need external resources food, water.
But eh, debates done.

Much as I could bring up dropped points, this really comes down to whether Pro has a case or not and... yeah, I don't see one. I understand that you missed the first round, but you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that the resolution is true. Simply saying that laws shouldn't be based on subjectivity and that the unborn have the capacity for development aren't affirming the resolution. You can't just stop at responding to your opponent on this - you have to establish your case, build an argument that there it is objective to say that abortion is murder and that the capacity for development establishes it as such. Pro's responses didn't do that, so he fails to meet his burden.

There's some back and forth about personhood, but Con brings up a point about trespassing that Pro doesn't really address, arguing that abortion is self-defense and not murder. As such, even if I buy everything that Pro is telling me about personhood, Con's argument about self-defense goes dropped and thus essentially conceded.

Basically, Pro was never able to establish the definition upon which his argument rests. Con did a good job of outlining his conception of the word "murder" as a purely legal term in his first round. Pro doesn't contest this until the final round, and at that point, by virtue of not criticizing the definition before, Pro tacitly accepted the definition. Therefore, this debate is, in my mind, strictly about whether abortion satisfies the legal requirements for murder. In regard to this point, Pro never truly offered a meaningful argument, while Con clearly cemented the legality of abortion, necessarily meaning abortion is not murder. To his credit, Pro did attempt to deconstruct the idea of using the law as a measure of what does or does not constitute murder. However, all of Pro's retorts were either unclear or blatantly contradictory. For example, Pro initially alleges that the law is not subjective, and when challenged by Con, Pro admits that the law is subjective but insists that there is an objective basis to the law (without ever explaining what that objective basis is).

This next point does not have much to do with the legality of abortion, and therefore has little bearing on my vote, but I thought I would comment on it considering the debate was so short. Con attempted to compare preserving human hands to a fetus. I understand the basics of Con's point, effectively arguing that the mere presence of a human cell does not represent a "person" worthy of the right to life. However, I think Pro did a good job of clarifying that the presence of a human cell is not sufficient to attain the right to life. Rather, Pro asserts that it is the potential to become a person (through uninterrupted or manipulated processes). Pro offered two responses to this, one being that human hands can be cloned and become a PERSON, which is a claim he never really supported properly (I know he linked a YouTube video, but it wasn't particularly illuminating). He also argued in the final round that fetuses do not develop independent of external resources, but Pro never really seemed to disagree in his previous arguments. Pro very explicitly referred to external INTERVENTION, which I interpreted to be a reference to an action on the part of another agent to disrupt the development of personhood.