Abortion before the end of the second trimester is murder
Debate Rounds (3)
Murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another 
Abortion: The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy 
Second Trimester of Pregnancy: time period extending from the 13th to the 27th week of gestation 
-First round is for acceptance of definitions.
-Second round is for main arguments. Pro may not rebut my arguments until the third round; he can only state his own.
-Third round is for rebuttals to our opponent's main arguments and then summary of one's own. No new arguments may be made outside those that are needed for rebuttal. Pro may not respond to the rebuttals I make to his arguments, since I am unable to respond to his rebuttals of mine.
Abortion: Induced termination of pregnancy, involving destruction of the embryo or fetus.
Now, this round deals with our main arguments. I remind my opponent that he is not allowed to respond to my arguments until the third round, where I will address his as well. He can only state his main argument in this round.
Ultimately, I will prove that abortion is not the killing of an innocent human being, because the embryo/fetus is not a human being. I will remind you that murder is the killing of a human being, under both of our definitions, even though his is irrelevant. So, if I can prove that an embryo/fetus is not a human being, then abortion before the end of the second trimester is not murder.
A human being is an organism , which is defined as: "An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal" . So, if an embryo is not an organism, it is not a human being.
Individuality is required for something to be considered an organism under organism's scientifically accepted definition. An embryo is not an organism, because it is not an individual. An individual is defined as: "A single, separate organism (animal or plant) distinguished from others of a same kind" . Allow me to show you how it is not an individual.
An embryo does not fall under this scientifically accepted definition of an individual, because it is not able to be separated from the mother it resides in without dying. In other words, its existence as life is dependent upon it being attached to the mother. It is not "separate," as the definition of individual requires. I do not expect my opponent to deny the fact that a fetus is attached to the mother, but I have cited this fact just in case . For a fetus to be considered a human being, it must be an organism. For it to be considered an organism, it must have individuality, which it does not, because it is unable to survive without being attached to the mother.
Now, one may argue that even if the fetus is dependent upon the mother, so is a person hooked up to an IV machine dependent upon the IV machine; thus, shouldn't a person hooked up to an IV machine be not considered a human being as well? No. To be dependent upon the mother is the fetus in its natural state, as opposed to someone hooked up on an IV machine. If whatever incident that caused a person to be hooked up to an IV machine did not happen, then the person would be considered a human being. Thus, he or she should still be considered a human being despite the handicaps, because what happened to him or her was an irregular occurrence. A normal fetus on the other hand has no "incident" happen to them; no defect is present, only natural processes, yet they remain dependent. If you keep the natural processes intact for both the fetus and the human, the human being would still be considered an individual, while the fetus would not. In principle, a person attached to an IV machine is still a human being; a fetus in principle is not a human being.
I have shown how abortion before the end of the second trimester is not murder because murder involves killing a human being, which a fetus is not. According to the rules, my opponent has the burden of showing that abortion is murder in his main argument; he cannot directly respond to my arguments in round two, although his arguments can certainly contradict mine. He just cannot reference them directly.
I thank my opponent for accepting the debate and I wish him luck.
"Annually 50 million babies are aborted worldwide." and "In America 3700 babies are aborted a day. One every
Is it any different if I killed you now than if I killed you as a fetus. If you kill a fetus you take the life they will have.
You take away the wife/husband and children they may have. Would you want to be killed as a fetus because your
mother didn't want you or wasn't able to care for you? That means you would never know your friends or your family.
This question in my mind shouldn't be based on definitions. It is a moral question in my opinion.
In conclusion, you may not be taking away someone's life but you are taking away the life they're going to have.
I will do my best to respond to his argument, but honestly, there is not much to respond to.
His statistics are from a biased source, and are technically incorrect under my argument that a fetus is not a human being, a thus certainly not a baby, as the source likes to refer fetuses as. You really can't abort babies; that would be infanticide, not abortion.
"Is it any different if I killed you now than if I killed you as a fetus."
Yes, yes there is. As a fetus, I am unable to value my own existence. Now, I value my existence. So, yes, there is a difference.
"If you kill a fetus you take the life they will have."
The fetus, even without being aborted, is not guaranteed their life until they are actually born healthy. So by aborting them, you may not be taking the life they will have. Something else may happen to them, like a miscarriage.
But either way, that does not make it murder. I have shown how a fetus is not a human being; the act of an abortion is not taking a human being's life.
"Would you want to be killed as a fetus because your mother didn't want you or wasn't able to care for you?"
As a fetus, I would be unable to "want" or "not want" to be killed in the first place. Since I'm alive now, I value my life, but as a fetus, I am unable to value my life. But a fetus is not a human being; it has the possibility to develop into a human being if anything, but killing a possibility for a human being is not murder. An individual sperm has the possibility to develop into a baby as well, but male masturbation is not considered murder even by most Pro-life standards. Even if a sperm needs a female's egg to make life, so does a fetus need a woman's body to develop into a life.
"It is a moral question in my opinion."
It certainly is a moral question. It is very philosophical in nature. That said, philosophy is based off of reality, and to use scientific definitions to back up one's philosophy is not only a good idea but also required to be taken seriously, since science is an observation of reality. And it wasn't even like I rigged the definitions in my favor either; my arguments could work under your provided definitions, and the ones I provided in Round Two that I needed for my argument were scientifically based and not nitpicked from various sources. You, on the other hand, have only given emotional appeals with no evidence to back them up.
Just because a question is a moral question doesn't mean that you can use your emotions to answer it. Rather, you should look at the evidence, which exists in statistics, definitions, scientific law, etc., to see which answer to this moral question is correct. I have provided biology facts and scientific definitions, along with the reasoning to apply the facts and definitions with each other, to prove my case correct. My opponent has not done this in his main argument. His main argument does not prove the notion that abortion before the second trimester is murder. For this reason, you should vote Con.
Now, I will remind my opponent that in the third round he cannot state any new arguments; all he can do is rebut to the arguments I made in round two, as I have just done here with his arguments from round two. He cannot reply to the arguments I just made here in round three either, since I am unable to reply to his rebuttals made this round. All of this is in the rules.
I thank my opponent for the debate.
someone before us wrote the definition that we follow? What if he had written it differently to where it is murder?
We're just following what a human being before us wrote and we believe. I guess it is just the way you see it.
The ones that believe it isn't murder just look at definitions people before us wrote and believe it isn't. People who believe it is look at the life the baby may have. Should humans have the decision over life and death? I suppose I will lose this debate because I based it on my emotions and opinions and not a definition.
I thank my opponent.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by THE_OPINIONATOR 10 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument was well thought out and he had very accurate sources, however my moral opinion and side still stands with the Pro side. I suggest that Pro useion and referances as possible in order to justify his argument. Short arguments aren't bad unless you cover all of your bases. Pro needs to clarify his argument as much as possible for the readers of the debate.