The Instigator
logicinlife
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
SocialDemocrat
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Abortion is Murder

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
logicinlife
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 561 times Debate No: 88849
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)

 

logicinlife

Pro

Welcome everyone! Here is the game:

Pro - Abortions are Murder
Con - Abortions are not Murder

One Round. No Semantics or games. I have made my case below. Con can provide rebuttals or make a case seperate from my arguments so long as they remain on topic.

Without further ado...


Many abortions are performed under the assumption that life begins after birth, but in truth, it starts much earlier. The implications of life beginning at conception require attention as our country commits and allows the mass murder of innocent life. As a father and a Christian who has had close experiences with abortion, this topic has great personal importance. With continual advances in technology, scientists and parents alike are able to see the development of the unborn more clearly than ever before.

A new fetus contains all that is needed to become a fully functioning adult at conception and is no different from one who is born, other than the point of development he or she is actively experiencing. Studies continue to discover fresh evidence proving that babies exhibit responses to stimuli much earlier than believed by the general population. This includes babies’ responses to their mother, and responses to pain. A beating heart is also present despite the belief that it does not appear until near full development. If the above points are true, then abortion is murder, as much so as the murder of any other human being. Many believe that abortions are not immoral because they feel that the fetus is not alive or not considered a person. However, studies have shown that human life begins much earlier than birth. Many people see a fetus as just a lump of cells, but it is much more than that.

A fetus contains all that is needed to become a unique and fully functioning adult at conception. A new fetus is termed a “zygote,” and contains human DNA. DNA is a blueprint for everything from eye color to personality traits and “DNA contains the instructions needed for an organism to develop, survive and reproduce” (Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Fact Sheet, 2015. p. 4). Each zygote is an individualized blend of their parent’s DNA, creating a new and unique person at conception. This blending of DNA and the forty-six chromosomes, which make up each individual person, eliminates the idea that the fetus is merely another appendage of a woman’s body. As Lee (2004) said, “What makes it wrong to kill you or me now would also have been present in the killing of you or me when we existed as adolescents, as toddlers, as infants, but also when we existed as foetuses or embryos” (p. 250). As the zygote develops into a fetus, it begins to express these individual features, responses to stimuli, and preferences, just as any other human being.

Despite the popular belief that a fetus’ heartbeat develops far later in the pregnancy; the facts show otherwise, and it is accepted that, “the heart begins to beat by the 25th day of development” (Balaban & Bobick, 2008. p. 318). In some cases, heartbeats can be seen on a sonogram as early as three weeks gestation. Many states, in fact, require that a mother hears the heartbeat of their child before receiving an abortion. In Minnesota, a pamphlet is provided, in accordance to the Women’s Right to Know Act, to all mothers contemplating abortion, which explains that the physician will be providing a means of pain relief for the unborn child (Minnesota Department of Health, 2015. p. 9). A variety of studies throughout the years have been published, which show that a fetus responds to stimuli earlier than previously thought, in fact, in a recent study researchers confirmed such a conclusion (Marx & Nagy, 2015. p. 4). Babies can also be seen smiling in reaction to their mother’s voice as early as seventeen weeks gestation. The idea that a fetus can be aborted because it is perceived as an unresponsive blob of tissue is refuted by these studies, which show that life begins before birth.

If the above points are true, and a fetus is more than just an unresponsive blob of tissue, than abortion is undoubtedly murder. Murder is defined as, “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another” (Oxford dictionaries, 2016. p. 1). The act of abortion would be premeditated killing of that fetus as a mother contemplates, plans, and prepares for her abortion. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act places unborn children with the same value as any other human being, in fact, section 1841 states that any attempt to kill a fetus will be punished in the same manner as attempting to kill an already-born human being (Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, 2004). Furthermore, in defining “unborn child,” the law states, ‘‘As used in this section, the term ‘unborn child’ means a child in utero, and 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’’ (Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, 2004). In accordance with this law many state laws and federal laws allowing abortions are in complete contradiction to each other. In the same way, the public denial of the unborn being human is in opposition to the federal definition of “unborn child.” Just as well, the killing of a born baby is murder, and the logical conclusion to draw is that the killing of an unborn baby should be treated the same. “As the difference between a six-month old human being and that same human being twenty years later is only one of maturation, the same is true of the human embryo or foetus compared to the twenty-year old she matures into” (Lee, 2004. p. 257).

Despite that many believe that abortions are not immoral because they disregard the fetus as alive or a person, we are murdering people, but not only people – innocent children. A fetus does indeed contain all that is needed to become a unique and fully functioning adult at conception. Studies continue to discover new evidence proving that the unborn have unique personalities, responses, and awareness in the womb. These presented facts indicate that abortion is indeed murder and thus a serious issue worth contending over. We must then, bring people to taking responsibility for their sexual activity and present the facts in hopes to prevent those consequences of falling on an innocent child. While children are subject to their parent’s choices, we should allow children the right to live and give them the opportunity to respond to the gift of life. The continuous debate, on whether or not a fetus is a person, in itself should have been enough to prevent us from moving forward with the legalization of abortion. To enact a law, which allows for the murder of innocent life, or the taking of any life, on the basis of uncertain conclusions, assumptions, and appeals to emotions is neither moral nor justified.



References

Balaban, N. E., & Bobick, J. E. (2008). Human Growth and Development. In The handy anatomy answer book. Detroit: Visible Ink Press.

Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Fact Sheet. (2015, June 16). Retrieved from http://www.genome.gov...

Lee, P. (2004). The Pro-Life Argument from Substantial Identity: A Defence. Bioethics, 18(3), 249-263. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2004.00393.x

Marx, V., & Nagy, E. (2015, June 8). PLOS ONE. Retrieved from http://journals.plos.org...

Minnesota Department of Health. (2015, September 14). Retrieved from http://www.health.state.mn.us...

Murder. 2016. In http://www.oxforddictionaries.com.... Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1841 – 919a (2004)

SocialDemocrat

Con

My opponent did not define claims, so I will.

murder-The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

(Because of this, for him to have a claim, he needs to prove a zygote, blastocyst, embryo and fetus qualifies as a human being)

human being-having the characteristics and qualifications of a human being.

abortion- The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.

The fact that he made this a one round debate puts him at a huge disadvantage. Also note Burden of proof is shared.

REBUTTALS

His first paragraph serves like a preamble nothing for me to argue against.

if I could prove an embryo is not a human being, then abortion is not murder, and then I win. You need to first understand that a human and a human being are two very different things. A human is made of cells and has DNA, but a human being has much more specific qualifications.

There are seven qualities something must meet in order to be considered a human being:

-They must be made of cells.
-They must obtain and use energy.
-They must grow and develop.
-They must be able to reproduce.
-They must respond to their environment.
-They must adapt to their environment.
-Finally, it needs to be able to live independently.

If there is a single one of these qualities they do not meet, then they are not a human being http://utahscience.oremjr.alpine.k12.ut.us...

An embryo is indeed made of cells.

It can obtain and use energy.

It can grow and develop, so good so far.

It does have the qualities of reproduction.

They can respond to their environment.

They can adapt to their environment, just one more quality to meet.

Here is where an embryo fails to qualify as a human being. An embryo, cannot live independently. An embryo can not independently survive on its own outside its mothers womb, therefore while an embryo is a human, in the sense that it has DNA and is made of cells, but is not a human being as it does not fit the qualifications. Therefore, whether you agree with abortion morally or not, an embryo is not human.

http://sciencedirect99.blogspot.com...
Debate Round No. 1
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: sengejuri// Mod action: NOT Removed<

5 points to Pro (Argument, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Con never rebuts why Pro's murder definition ("unlawful premeditated killing...") should not apply to abortion, so that argument stands. Instead, Con attacks the definition of a human being by offering 7 criteria and says a fetus meets all criteria except the 7th (living independently). However, Con's cited source for this point only lists the first 6 criteria and makes no mention of the 7th, which is the lynchpin of Con's entire argument. This leads readers to believe Con invented the last criterion without justification, thereby forcing us to discard it. Since Con agrees that a fetus meets the first 6 criteria of personhood, Con's rebuttal does not sufficiently defeat Pro's argument. Argument to Pro. When comparing sources, Pro uses multiple textbooks, peer reviewed scholarly articles, and credible government sources. Con cites a blog and what appears to be a K-12 school website. Pro's sources are more authoritative. If this vote is removed, I will just keep voting.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter explained this decision more than sufficiently. While it could and should have contained details on how Pro's sources were relevant to the debate, the voter does enough to explain why Con's sources could either be outright disregarded or do damage to his case. As long as he explained why Pro's sources had any value to his argument, even a value of making it look authoritative, that's sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by sengejuri 8 months ago
sengejuri
... And lest the vote moderators say my RFD is still insufficient (lol), allow me to continue:

My RFD for arguments was previously accepted as sufficient, so it should continue to be valid.

Sources: Con cites a source for their 7 criteria in order to give authority to their argument. However, Con's actual point is found nowhere in that source, so the source is irrelevant. To me as a reader, this is improper use of a source, and it therefore greatly weakens Con's case. Con's second source is a blog, which is not a very authoritative source. Pro on the other hand uses verifiable, peer-reviewed articles and government websites. This brings more reliability to Pro's arguments for me as a reader. Sources to Pro.
Posted by logicinlife 8 months ago
logicinlife
Whatever, man. You've just made me realize this website is more of a waste of time than I realized.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
1) You've got 7 days. Post in the unvoted debate section, message one of the members of the Voter's Union (they post in the forums pretty often) and get some votes.

2) I'd think that since you spent all of that time and effort that you'd actually want some substantive votes.

3) Their opinions aren't censored. People have the capacity to post in the comments or post null votes explaining their views on the debate. It's the awarding of points that makes these votes problematic. The standards are clear in explaining what's required of voters who wish to award them. It's not me making decisions based on the votes I think are good or bad - I'm simply applying the standards as they stand and have stood since before I arrived. Voicing opinion is a different story.

4) I literally re-posted their opinions in the comments with lines of stars surrounding them. I hardly think that's censorship.

5) If voters choose to award extra points, they have to sufficiently explain those extra point allocations. Two points is not a small amount to award, and voters should be required to explain them to a significant degree. Merely stating that one side had scholarly sources isn't enough to establish that they were doing anything for you in the debate, nor does it show that the voter effectively compared your sourcing to your opponent's. You even seem to recognize that a comparison of sources reveals the strength of yours. All of those things are required in order to award these points.

6) If the standards on this site forced people to the level of college debate judging, they'd either a) be effectively non-existent, since while there are standards for all kinds of college debate, many don't enforce them, or b) they would be far higher if we just took all of those standards are required them on the site. The difference between a sufficient vote by moderation standards and a halfway decent vote in college debate can be (and often is) staggering.
Posted by logicinlife 8 months ago
logicinlife
Furthermore, I didn't agree with the other voters analysis, but his vote clearly demonstrated one who looked at the debate, formed an opinion, and posted a vote. That should be enough to leave the vote, period.

Y'all have more rules and guidelines for HOW people vote here than the presidential election. Regardless of how stupid some people can be, they have a right to vote so long as it pertains to the debate.
Posted by logicinlife 8 months ago
logicinlife
Guess what? Chances are there won't be anymore votes because of your removal, which means a tie. That means (a) my efforts in research for the purpose of the debate were wasted, (b) peoples opinion on the debate were censored, which is an issue in itself, and finally (c), there is little reason to participate on this site anymore when the only votes relieved are taken away because a moderator decides a voters vote on "sources" is throw away. Any look at my sources would tell you that they are scholarly sources by academic standards, and this makes the voters point well off. Not only was his vote obvious when comparing sources, but it is sufficent.

This site is for normal people. Not "college debate judges". Period.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
logicinlife, the standards are very clear. ConservativeDemocrat didn't even explain two of their point allocations at all, and the substance of the RFD could have been garnered solely by skimming the debate without reading a single argument. sengejuri's was closer, but he's still required to give more than a throwaway reason why one side should get source points. These are the standards for voting on the site, and if you want to express disagreement with them, go for it. I'd be happy to discuss them at length.
Posted by logicinlife 8 months ago
logicinlife
Whiteflame, you've got to be joking. You vote mods are controlling crocks of crap, and for the most part your reasoning for removing comments are absolutely idiotic. Let the people vote how they want, dude.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: ConserativeDemocrat// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (S&G, Sources), 3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Since this seems to be more of a scientific debate rather then a morals debate, Con's argument is solid and makes more sense then Pro's argument, which is more about morals. The title of the debate is, "Abortion is murder", not "Abortion is immoral". So because this is a scientific debate, Con wins for me.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain S&G or Sources. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter has to assess specific points made by each side, and not merely refer to them in broad strokes.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: sengejuri// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Both arguments had some big weaknesses. Pro's biggest weakness was their definition of murder being the "UNLAWFUL premeditated killing..." (abortion is not unlawful in the US, so it cannot be murder), but Con never attacked this point. Con concedes that a fetus is human in every criteria except living independently. But Con's cited source does not include this criterion, so it seems Con just made it up. Furthermore, Con does not square this criterion with the obvious counter that newborn babies, toddlers, and handicapped people cannot survive independently either, yet they are still considered human beings. Since Con's rebuttal does not sufficiently counter Pro's argument, argument to Pro. Pro's sources are also more reputable and scholarly, so sources to Pro as well.

[*Reason for removal*] While the arguments points are sufficiently explained (barely " very little analysis of Pro's argument and its strength), sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to do more than simply state that one side's sources were "more reputable and scholarly". While this may be a factor, the voter is required to explain why Pro's sources were sufficiently important to the debate to win these points, as well as why Con's sources were weak.
************************************************************************
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by sengejuri 8 months ago
sengejuri
logicinlifeSocialDemocratTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never rebuts why Pro's murder definition ("unlawful premeditated killing...") should not apply to abortion, so that argument stands. Instead, Con attacks the definition of a human being by offering 7 criteria and says a fetus meets all criteria except the 7th (living independently). However, Con's cited source for this point only lists the first 6 criteria and makes no mention of the 7th, which is the lynchpin of Con's entire argument. This leads readers to believe Con invented the last criterion without justification, thereby forcing us to discard it. Since Con agrees that a fetus meets the first 6 criteria of personhood, Con's rebuttal does not sufficiently defeat Pro's argument. Argument to Pro. When comparing sources, Pro uses multiple textbooks, peer reviewed scholarly articles, and credible government sources. Con cites a blog and what appears to be a K-12 school website. Pro's sources are more authoritative. If this vote is removed, I will just keep voting.