Total votes: 5
Looked like it was off to a great start and then all of a sudden...BAM - forfeit.
This debate requires a large burden of Con - they need to show (or at least convincingly paint) abortion as unlawful and malicious.
Con asserts abortion involves a desire to inflict a lethal injury to another in an effort to make it malicious. Does it? I didn’t see an argument attempting to establish this. Suffice to say, I am unconvinced of this claim. Beyond this, Con needs to argue this malice is directed at a person. She makes an attempt after defining embryo, but ultimately makes another bald assertion the embryo is a person - just like children, but this isn’t true developmentally or legally. Again, I have no argument to be convinced by. Malice without a target is not illegal and there can be no crime without a victim. Ultimately, I wasn't convinced by either debater, but Con had the burden and Pro wins by default.
Is abortion murder from the point of conception? I'm not sure this debate got us any closer to an answer.
Pro seemed to hold that the killing of an innocent human is unquestionably murder... in a moral sense (whatever that means). I would have liked to of seen some definitions provided by Pro since he is using murder in an irregular way. Pro should also understand ways in which an innocent human can be killed without 'murder' being an appropriate label (war for instance). Precision can strengthen Pro's arguments, imo.
On the other hand, Con suggested that intelligence is required for an entity to be a moral agent. This standard leaves a lot to be desired. I understand Con is trying to distill morality down to fundamental components, but Con should probably reconsider. A standard which would hold Koko the gorilla with more moral value than an infant is problematic to say the least. I would have like to see Con playing a bit more offense rather than defending positions he didn't need to take.
Tie on arguments.
I think there is a question regarding the use of ChatGPT. Conduct to Pro.
I was swayed by Con's argument. He provided a logical explanation why abortion and murder are not the same thing. Clearly, if abortion isn't illegal, it can't be murder by definition alone. Con, imo, provided higher quality and quantity of unbiased sources to earn Source points. I see no clear difference in spelling or grammar between the participants. Pro forfeited thus Con gets conduct.
Pro forfeit. Con wins by default. I was really hoping to see a lovely debate on this subject!!