The Instigator
Death23
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
sengejuri
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Abortion is Murder

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 2/16/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,162 times Debate No: 86656
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (32)
Votes (0)

 

Death23

Con

Voting: ELO 2,000 minimum and Select Winner

You troll, you lose.

You forfeit, you lose.

Last round, rebuttals only. No new arguments.

All sourced material must include a citation to a source.

If you cite a source, then you must directly quote the source. Only direct quotation from sources shall be deemed acceptable for a source to support an assertion or contention. No citing a source without quoting it.

All citations to sources must be within the debate. No citations to sources in the comments.

All citations to sources must be online only and working links must be provided so that the source may be examined by the opponent. No offline sources may be used as they cannot be scrutinized with reasonable ease.

All citations to sources must be in the form of working links.

All citations to a quoted source must be adjacent to the quotation so that it is easy to determine which source supports which assertion.

If you desire to use a URL shortener, you may. However, you must use goo.gl ( https://goo.gl... )

There is work associated with scrutinizing sources. The purpose of these rules is to make it easier to scrutinize sources. Violating the rules on sources is sufficient grounds for a loss. However, a view toward substantial compliance and satisfaction of the purpose of the rules should be considered.


*** BEGIN OPENING ARGUMENT ***


The claim that abortion is murder is sometimes made argumentatively by political opponents of abortion with the objective of associating abortions with the negative connotations of murder. The larger argument, of course, is that abortions are bad and should be outlawed, but whether or not abortions are bad or should be banned isn't the topic of this debate. So, the focus must be on the resolution.

This debate is necessary semantic. So, it will be important to look at definitions for guidance. First it is important to establish a working definitions for "abortion" and "murder", as used in the context of a debate where abortion is argumentatively claimed to be murder. The following are four entries for "abortion" from reputable dictionaries:


Oxford Dictionary -

"The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy." http://goo.gl...


American Heritage Dictionary -

"Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus." https://goo.gl...


Collins Dictionary -

"an operation or other procedure to terminate pregnancy before the fetus is viable" http://goo.gl...


Merriam-Webster Dictionary -

"the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus" http://goo.gl...


From the same sources, the respective entries for "murder" -


Oxford Dictionary -

"The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another" http://goo.gl...


American Heritage Dictionary -

"The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting" https://goo.gl...


Collins Dictionary -

"the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another; also, any killing done while committing some other felony, as rape or robbery" http://goo.gl...


Merriam-Webster Dictionary -

"the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought" http://goo.gl...


I will not be hyper-technical with these definitions. A commonality from all of these definitions for murder is that the killing must be a crime, illegal, and/or unlawful. An abortion is certainly a killing but abortions are, by and large, legal killings that are sanctioned by the state. For that reason, and perhaps other reasons, abortions are not necessarily murders.

This is not to say that it is impossible for an abortion to be a murder. In some jurisdictions, an abortion may actually be a murder, depending on the circumstances. For example, in 2014 the "Kansas Attorney General’s office [...] charged Scott Robert Bollig, 30, of first degree murder [...] after he laced his pregnant girlfriend’s pancake with a crushed abortion drug" which "caused the death of her 8-10-week old pre-born baby." http://goo.gl.... However, cases like these are the exception rather than the rule, as the vast majority of abortions in the United States are performed legally.

sengejuri

Pro

== Opening Argument ==

1) To quote my opponent, "This debate is necessar[il]y semantic." So let's start there. I generally agree with the presented definitions, and there are some key parts of them I wish to emphasize. For example, the American Heritage definition of murder begins, "The killing of another person without justification or excuse, ..." This does not require the killing to be unlawful in order to be considered murder. It does say "especially the crime..." but this does not mean a crime is necessary. Therefore, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, a murder need only be a killing without valid justification or excuse. Moving on to the Collins Dictionary, the definition reads: "the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another..." We must acknowledge the "or" here, which suggests that murder can be either unlawful/malicious OR premeditated killing. Since Con defines abortion as the deliberate [i.e., premeditated] termination of a human pregnancy, we can therefore accept that abortion qualifies as murder under the latter portion of the Collins murder definition. As we can see, killing does not necessarily have to be unlawful to qualify as murder.

2) Con has not specified which legal system we are operating under. So even with the (false) assumption that murder must be an unlawful killing, we are left asking "unlawful according to whom?" It is true, American law generally allows abortion, but the laws of other countries do not. "66 countries, [encompassing] 25.64% of world's population" have laws that prohibit abortion outright or make only very rare exceptions [http://www.google.com...]. In fact, lest it be thought these countries are a mere minority, only "61 countries, [encompassing] 39.22% of the world's population" live in countries where abortion is permitted without significant restrictions [Ibid.] Furthermore, multiple religious laws prohibit abortion (this is common knowledge and in no need of a citation). So, we can clearly see that abortions are not, as my opponent claims, "by and large" legal killings sanctioned by the state. Con did conclude their opening argument by saying "the vast majority of abortions in the United States are performed legally" but they never limit our discussion only to the U.S. Since Con has failed to specify which legal system we are using, I can claim any one of the 66 nations that prohibit abortion and successfully meet all 4 of Con's "murder" definitions.

3) Abortion is the premeditated killing of a human by another human. In a way, Con has already conceded this by writing "an abortion is certainly a killing..." but I shall elaborate nonetheless:

a. Science overwhelmingly confirms that the unborn, even at the earliest stage, are human. At the first moments of conception, the zygote has unique and completely human DNA. Humans have 46 chromosomes with DNA specific to the Homo Sapiens species. All 46 chromosomes, as well as the human specific DNA that comes with them, are present the moment the fertilized egg begins dividing. "The fertilized egg performs its first mitotic division. Each of the two new daughter cells contains the full species' genome and the entire genotype of the new individual, with half it's chromosomes inherited from each genetic parent." [http://classroom.synonym.com...]

Even if an abortion happens just after pregnancy is usually detected (week 5), the "baby's brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to develop." [https://www.nlm.nih.gov...] By week 6, "Baby's heart continues to grow and now beats at a regular rhythm" [Ibid.]. The heart and spine of a fetus are not the organs of some separate sub-human species. They are genetically and fully Homo Sapien. There is not a single scientific argument to justify why a fetus is not a member of the human species.

b. Federal Law - even U.S. Federal Law confirms that the unborn are both alive and human. The 2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA), Section 1841, says that any person who injures a child in utero can be punished as if they injured the mother herself, even if the offender acted unintentionally or had no knowledge she was pregnant. Furthermore, UVVA says, "As used in this section, the term 'child in utero' or 'child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." [https://www.congress.gov...]Incredibly, this means that if a pregnant woman on her way to the abortion clinic gets hit by a texting driver, survives, but loses the baby, then that driver can be charged with manslaughter. Yet, if the woman arrives safely at the abortion clinic, she can "lose" her baby in a perfectly legal and often celebrated procedure. This contradiction borders on insanity and cannot be justified with logic.

== Closing ==

Abortion kills a living member of the human species. Since abortion is also a deliberate act (according to R1 definitions) abortion is therefore the premeditated killing of one human being by another. This meets criteria for murder definition #3, therefore, abortion is murder.

Looking forward to Round 2.
Debate Round No. 1
Death23

Con

New Definitions -

In support of my position, I would ask that the voters weigh and consider the following definitions for "murder" -

"Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought" (California Penal Code § 187; http://goo.gl... )

"Murder is a planned, illegal form of taking someone's life. If you read a law book, you'll see how complicated murder can be." https://goo.gl...

"the crime of intentionally killing a person" http://goo.gl...

"Murder is defined as the illegal, pre-planned killing of one person by another" http://goo.gl...

"the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)." http://goo.gl...

"unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being" http://goo.gl...

"the deliberate and illegal killing of a person." http://goo.gl...

"The act of unlawfully killing a human being with premeditated malice" http://goo.gl...

"unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being" http://goo.gl...

The totality of these definitions, along with the definitions introduced in the prior round, strongly suggest that murder, by definition, is an unlawful act. Ergo, a lawful act cannot be a murder. A person who lawfully kills in self defense is not a murderer because the killing was lawful; A soldier lawfully kills in military combat is not a murderer; A man who lawfully executes a condemned prisoner is not a murderer; For the same reason, a pregnant woman and/or a doctor who lawfully aborts the pregnancy is not a murderer.


Re: Collin's Definition

My opponent has misinterpreted a grammatical ambiguity. My opponent focuses on this part of the Collin's definition for murder -

"the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another" http://goo.gl...

My opponent focuses on this part:

"unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing" http://goo.gl...

My opponent interprets this definition to mean that any killing is sufficient to constitute murder so long as it is either:

1. Unlawful and malicious; OR

2. Premeditated

Perhaps my opponent's interpretation could be expressed this way:

[unlawful and malicious] OR [premeditated]

I doubt that this is how the authors of the definition intended for it to be interpreted. There is a more reasonable interpretation, which is this:

Any killing is sufficient to constitute murder so long as it is either:

1. Unlawful and malicious; OR

2. Unlawful and premeditated

This interpretation could be expressed this way:

[unlawful] AND [malicious or premeditated]

Although the text from Collin's itself is ambiguous as to which interpretation was intended, it is the latter of these interpretations which is most consistent with the meaning of "murder" as described by dictionaries and statutes at large; On that basis, I urge the voters to reject my opponent's interpretation and go with the one I offer here.


Re: American Heritage Definition

My opponent argues from the following definition -

"The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting" https://goo.gl...

My opponent argues that an abortion can be a murder under this definition, contending that an abortion is killing another person without justification or excuse. My opponent's argument ignores the fact that terminating a pregnancy is, by and large, a valid excuse. My opponent's own source indicates that "more than 60% of the world’s population lives in countries where induced abortion is permitted either for a wide range of reasons or without restriction as to reason." ( http://goo.gl... )


Re: Population Statistics

My opponent quotes a report, but what my opponent neglected to mention was that the first statement from his source is that "more than 60% of the world’s population lives in countries where induced abortion is permitted either for a wide range of reasons or without restriction as to reason." ( http://goo.gl... ) Ergo, this source is not supportive of my opponent's position; Rather, it is supportive of mine.

Furthermore, my opponent's emphasis on the percentage of the human population residing in jurisdictions where abortion is outlawed is arbitrary. Perhaps we should go with the percentage of square miles where abortion is murder under the law of the respective jurisdictions; Perhaps we should go with English speaking countries only, as this debate is about the meaning of an English word; Perhaps we should go with the total number of abortions which are legal as opposed to the total number of abortions which are illegal since this debate is about abortion in practice - Perhaps we should go with the United States only, as this is an American website and the users here are American for the most part - The point is that choosing any one of these metrics is equally as arbitrary as any other without good cause as to which one should be emphasized for purposes of this debate. My opponent hasn't presented any justification for using population percentages.


Re: Choice of Law

My opponent is correct when he asserts that abortion is murder under some law and not murder under other laws. However, looking at the totality of the laws in effect and the totality of abortions, abortion is, by and large, legal and is not murder. My position in this debate has been, and continues to be, that abortion can be murder depending on the circumstances, but for the most part abortion is not murder. Given that, it would be inaccurate to say that abortion is murder.


Re: Fetuses as humans under the law for purposes of murder

My argument considers fetuses to be people for purposes of murder, as do many laws. The contention that fetuses are not humans for purposes of murder is valid in some jurisdictions (e.g. Common law of England); However, this does not form the basis of my argument. I see no reason to dispute the point that fetuses are humans for purposes of murder, as I am generally in agreement with the notion except for a few exceptions which have a minimal impact.

sengejuri

Pro

== Rebuttals ==

1) New Definitions

Disappointingly, Con has attempted to evade my opening argument by introducing new definitions. This is the weakest form of argument and appears to be a move of desperation. It is also poor conduct - definitions are presented in the first round so both participants can read and agree to them. Introducing new definitions in subsequent rounds deprives the opponent of this opportunity. I do not agree to these new definitions, and the voters shouldn't either. I will continue to operate under the definitions agreed to in Round 1.

2) Collins Definition

The best defense my opponent has here is to admit the Collins definition is "ambiguous" and could be interpreted two ways. Con then urges voters to accept their interpretation and reject mine. This is called a Special Pleading fallacy. If the definition is ambiguous (as Con admits) and can be interpreted two ways, then my interpretation is just as valid as my opponent's. As such, my claim that the Collins definition allows murder to be understood as a lawful but premeditated killing stands.

3) American Heritage Definition

Con says that an abortion is an excuse to kill another person, thereby exempting it from this definition. This misses my main point, which was that American Heritage gives us another example of how murder can be defined without requiring an unlawful killing. Even so, Con still runs into the problematic question of "unlawful according to whom?" According to my source, abortion in Egypt would not be a valid excuse to kill, and therefore would qualify as murder. This brings me to my next point....

4) Population Statistics

Here my opponent contradicts their own argument. In the first paragraph, Con notes that since my source says 60% of the world's population lives in countries where abortion is legal, it therefore supports their position. But, in the very next paragraph, Con dismisses percentages of human populations as "arbitrary." If this is true, then Con's initial rebuttal is therefore arbitrary and can be ignored.

I chose not only percentages of human populations, but also numbers of countries that outlaw abortion. My original argument reads: "'66 countries, [encompassing] 25.64% of world's population' have laws that prohibit abortion outright or make only very rare exceptions." I chose this because Con is placing such a large emphasis on whether abortions are lawful killings. Obviously, nations make the laws, so it makes perfect sense to examine countries and their legal systems. This is, therefore, my justification for using countries and population percentages.

5) Choice of Law

Con attempts to move the goalposts here by saying I must now show how abortion is murder "for the most part." This was not the original premise. The premise reads very plainly: "Abortion is Murder" which technically means if I can show just one case where that's true, I win. But I can show much more than one case. Abortion is illegal in 66 countries and partially illegal in 72 other countries according to my Round 1 source. That's a grand total of 138 countries, which means we have 138 cases where abortion would be considered an unlawful killing, which means we have 138 different examples of abortion being murder. This does not even count various religions laws that prohibit abortion. This is more than enough evidence to satisfy the debate premise.

6) Con accepts a fetus is a human life, so there is nothing more to say on this point.

Due to the failure of Con's rebuttals, my argument remains valid: Abortion is the premeditated, and in many cases unlawful, killing of one human being by another. Therefore, abortion is murder.
Debate Round No. 2
Death23

Con

Re: Definitions

Pro characterizes my introduction of new definitions as "the weakest form of argument", "poor conduct", and "a move of desperation". Pro supports this position by arguing that introducing the definitions in the first round allows both participants to read and agree to them prior to accepting the debate, and that introducing them in prior rounds "deprives [Pro] of this opportunity".

Pro's accusation of misconduct is false. Pro never had to and there is no indication that Pro had to "accept and agree to the definitions" from round 1; It was never my intention to trick Pro in to thinking that the round 1 definitions were binding. There was no rule posted which said something to the effect of "for purposes of this debate, the following definitions shall be considered accurate". To the contrary, the definitions were used argumentatively (appearing after " *** BEGIN OPENING ARGUMENT*** " ) as a citation to authoritative sources to support my contention that all murder means an unlawful act. My round 1 argument was, in fact, originally a round 2 argument that was posted in a prior debate on this topic where an opponent flaked: http://www.debate.org...

Pro could have challenged the definitions introduced in round 1 as inaccurate and supported that challenge by introducing his own definitions, citing his own authorities, introducing his own evidence; etc. That was always an option for Pro, but Pro didn't do it. I do not understand why Pro claims to believe that he had no choice but to "read and agree" the definitions from round 1. I do not understand where this coming from. I don't get it. Curiously, it's difficult to see how Pro even has a case if he acknowledges and accepts the round 1 definitions as true, most of which define murder as unlawful and/or criminal.

In any case though, it is too late for Pro to make a new argument, as these are not permitted in the final round per the rules from round 1. Pro has failed to address the definitions. Pro has merely changed the subject to a false allegation of misconduct; Changing the subject is not convincing.


Re: Collin's Definition

When I spoke of this definition, I provided a reason as to why my interpretation should be favored over Pro's interpretation. I reiterate - My interpretation should be favored over Pro's because my interpretation was "most consistent with the meaning of 'murder' as described by dictionaries and statutes at large". (See prior round) Pro dropped this argument.


Re: American Heritage Definition

Pro has not addressed the fact that an abortion is, by and large, a valid excuse for killing under the law, and thus is not murder under the American Heritage definition. This doesn't miss Pro's point, as Pro's point was that an abortion is murder under the American Heritage definition. Pro changes the subject to the choice of law issue, and this was already addressed by me in the prior round.


Re: Population Statistics

Pro claims that I contradicted my own argument, but I did not. I was merely showing that if we accept population statistics as a relevant metric, then it is in my favor to do so, not Pro's. Pro has failed to address this point.


Re: Choice of Law

Pro claims that I am moving the goalposts here. Pro asserts that he if can show only a single case where abortion is murder, then he wins. Of course, if that were true, then I would have lost this debate before it even began because I introduced a case of an abortion that was murder in round 1. Pro's claim is false, and it is Pro who is the one who is trying to move the goal posts.

To support my position, lets examine this statement: "Abortion is murder". Lets look at another statement similarly phrased: "Rodents are big". Now, rodents are mostly small mammals with robust bodies, short limbs and long tails. So, the claim that "rodents are big" is false because rodents are, for the most part, not big. But wait, consider the capybara, the largest rodent -

That's a big rodent. So you see, Pro would have us believe that because of this single case of a big rodent, the statement that "rodents are big" suddenly becomes true. No, I'm afraid the statement doesn't become true because of a single case. We could consider the statement "water is cold"; Most water on earth is cold, but there is the warm water when I take a shower; "Pizza tastes good" - Most pizza tastes pretty good, but there is that slice of pizza that has been in a dumpster for 4 days; "Africans have white skin" - Most Africans do not have white skin, but there are some albinos running around -

You get the idea.

Pro can't show that "abortion is murder" is true merely by showing a single case or a handful of cases where abortion is murder. Pro's argument on this point is very weak. Abortion is, by and large, not murder. So, the claim that "abortion is murder" is not true.


Re: Counting the countries

Since Pro's population count argument has failed because his source supports my position instead of his on that issue, Pro attempts to change the relevant metric from population to the number of countries. Again, the emphasis on country counts is without any justification, as was Pro's emphasis on population statistics. Perhaps we should count every country as having outlawed abortion because some forms of abortion are illegal in every country (e.g. surreptitiously slipping a pregnant woman an abortion drug with the intent to induce an abortion). Anyway, Pro's argument doesn't have much weight here because the overwhelming majority of abortions are conducted legally. Furthermore, Pro is counting countries with minimal restrictions as countries where abortions are murder. This is not reasonable.


Re: Fetuses as human for purposes of murder

There's no point to bringing this up. Pro and I are generally in agreement that fetuses count for purposes of murder. Even one of the definitions I introduced counted fetuses as humans for purposes of murder. (California Penal Code § 187) Nowhere have I argued that abortion is not murder because fetuses aren't human. Rather, I have argued that abortion is not murder because the vast majority of abortions are lawful and all murder is unlawful as murder is a crime.

sengejuri

Pro

== Rebuttals ==

1) Definitions

I regret that my opponent feels confused on this. It's common knowledge in debates that if definitions are to be used, they are presented in the first round. This should not need to be specified, as it is a virtually universal practice. The reason for this is that debates get off track if participants are allowed to introduce new definitions at will. For example, Con says I could have introduced my own murder definition, in which case I would have cited one of the alternate definitions from Merriam-Webster: "Something outrageous or blameworthy," "To put an end to," or "something very difficult or unpleasant." Obviously, this leads to debating about the dictionary rather than the actual premise, which is silly. By accepting this debate, I accepted the 8 definitions originally posted by Con, and it was completely reasonable for me to assume these definitions would remain constant for the entire debate. As such, I am also within reason to reject the new definitions that I did not agree to.

Con says I could have challenged the Round 1 definitions, and I did. I showed that there are alternate ways to interpret the Collins definition, and I exposed that the definitions can qualify abortion as murder if applied under other legal codes. I am inclined to believe that Con realized the weaknesses of the original definitions after my challenge, which is why they attempted to introduce different ones. I maintain they should not be accepted as valid.

As for Con's claim that I have no case if I acknowledge and accept the Round 1 definitions, that's for the voters to decide. I will simply ask - if that's true, then why did Con put so much effort into finding new definitions if they already had the debate won?

2) Collins Definition

I definitely did not drop this argument. Since Con admitted that the Collins definition is ambiguous, then we cannot be sure how to interpret it - this is what ambiguous means. Con's interpretation should be favored only if we assume Con is right, which we cannot. I showed how 2 out 4 of Con's murder definitions do not necessarily require unlawful killing. That's half - far from "most" of the dictionaries and statutes my opponent claims. But, even if I yield and admit the Collins definition requires unlawful killing, I reiterate we must then ask "unlawful according to whom?" This is a glaring weakness in my opponent's argument, and one they have failed to adequately address.

3) American Heritage Definition

I'm beginning to wonder if Con even read my previous entry. I will reiterate - contrary to my opponent's claims, abortion is NOT "by and large" a valid excuse for killing under the law. As I previously noted, there are over 138 different legal systems under which all or some abortions are not valid excuses to kill. Con is asking us to ignore all of these and only consider the legal systems that do allow abortion. Once again, this is Special Pleading. Abortion is murder if Con's definitions are applied to any of these 138 countries.

4) Population Statistics

Con claimed to be "merely showing that if we accept population statistics as a relevant metric, then it is in [Con's] favor to do so." Not quite. My job is to show that abortion is murder according to the given definitions. Con did not specify a particular country or legal code to consider, which leaves it open. So, as an example, abortion is illegal in Egypt. This qualifies as murder under every single definition Con has presented. Therefore, in Egypt, abortion is murder. If this does not successfully confirm the premise, then I don't know what does. My point with the population stats was to show that there are many examples throughout the world where abortion qualifies as illegal killing, which is most certainly not in Con's favor. Once again, Con can't have it both ways - if population percentages are arbitrary (as Con claims), then Con's attempt to usurp my source based on population percentages is equally arbitrary.

5) Choice of Law

Con wants us to consider the example premise "Rodents are big" and argues my response would be to present the capybara and walk away. This is a clear Straw Man fallacy. First, at the risk of sounding redundant, I have not simply offered one or even a handful of "big rodent" examples, I have offered 138. Second, any reasonable person will understand that such a premise involves nuance. "Rodents are big" does not stand by itself, it demands context. Rodents ARE big compared to ants, and they are small, even then capybara, compared to elephants. In relation to our premise on abortion, Con has not specified any context. This gives me the freedom to present various contexts where the premise is true, and I have done exactly that.

6) Counting the countries

Con claims I abandoned the population count argument because it "failed" and shifted to emphasizing countries. This is ridiculous. My original argument from Round 1 clearly emphasizes both metrics equally. To the contrary, it is Con who is attempting to shift the metrics, because it's obvious that their failure to limit the premise within a specific context is a fatal weakness in their position.

== Conclusion ==

My opponent and I agree that a fetus is human life. My opponent and I therefore agree that abortion is the premeditated killing of human life. The critical question is whether that killing must be unlawful to be murder. I have shown that at least 2 of Con's murder definitions do not require an unlawful killing necessarily. But even if they did, Con has not sufficiently answered the question "unlawful according to whom?" I have shown multiple contexts where abortion is unlawful and can therefore be confirmed as murder. As such, I have sufficiently confirmed the premise: Abortion is Murder.
Debate Round No. 3
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Death23 9 months ago
Death23
@Pro

Why didn't you introduce your own definitions and/or challenge my definitions as inaccurate? There was no indication or rule posted in round 1 stating that you had to accept my definitions as accurate for debate purposes.
Posted by Death23 9 months ago
Death23
You're an idiot.
Posted by TheShaun 9 months ago
TheShaun
Says the person who has no logical response. Have fun with your life, chump change.
Posted by Death23 9 months ago
Death23
You're worthless.
Posted by TheShaun 9 months ago
TheShaun
That was a sad attempt. I just feel bad for you now.
Posted by Death23 9 months ago
Death23
Troll more.
Posted by ho11yw00d 9 months ago
ho11yw00d
Death23 is lost cause. He will live out the rest of his pathetic, hate-filled life, cursing all those that disagree with his asinine beliefs. Don't bother trying to reason with an ignorant god-less despot like him. Someone beat him or picked on him(probably molested him) his whole sad life. He uses the internet now to spew his hatred and discontent trying to find others that share in his pathetic existence.
Posted by Death23 9 months ago
Death23
*yawn*

PWNED U AGAIN!
Posted by TheShaun 9 months ago
TheShaun
Kid, you're just another troll. You can't handle being proven wrong. Grow up. You'll be wrong way more times than you think is possible. Probably due to you being positively encouraged when you were still just another average person. You aren't special. You're just another dumb kid that doesn't realize hes fighting against experience and intelligence.
Posted by TheShaun 9 months ago
TheShaun
Why are you taking so long to respond? You normally answer within minutes. Did I just screw up your plan? Awwwww. Poor kid.
No votes have been placed for this debate.