The Instigator
CAPLlock
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Illegalcombatant
Con (against)
Winning
4 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...
Illegalcombatant
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 690 times Debate No: 19367
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

CAPLlock

Pro

On Mobile
Im Con-Abortion. I'll be facing someone who disagrees with the title. Everyone got that?

Traits of life are...
http://library.thinkquest.org...
Murder is...
- noun 1.�unlawful intentional killing - verb (used with object) 2.�to kill unlawfully and deliberately
- Related Forms �� self-mur�dered- adjective �� self-mur�der- noun
http://m.dictionary.com...
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank CapLlock for creating this debate.

Seeing that Pro has not posted an argument in the first round I am assuming the first round is just for acceptance. I will not be presenting any argument in the first round but Pro has put up some definitions and I would like to make some further points and clarifications as they pertain to this debate.

Pro has defined murder as "Murder is...
- noun 1. unlawful intentional killing - verb (used with object) 2. to kill unlawfully and deliberately"

Now here is the problem, this definition of murder is a legal definition not a moral definition. Pro can merely point out a law some where in the world where abortion is illegal, and thus say abortion is murder. But I can also point out area's in the world where abortion is not unlawful, thus not murder.

As such I suspect what Pro really has in mind is that they will be making an argument that abortion is murder in the moral sense and since the law should reflect morality that the abortion should be unlawful.

What this means is that this debate is not what the law is or isn't, but what the law SHOULD be.

I would also like to point out that the resolution and interpretation of the resolution is as such that no exceptions have been made or allowed and as such abortion as murder is framed as an absolute.

I look forward to Pros opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
CAPLlock

Pro

Lawful can have moral reasoning also. Lawful in not stuck in Rulership.

Fetuses are human. They are alive. Murder is a human killing another human full aware of what he did.

1. Do human beings possess intrinsic moral value? (Something with intrinsic value may be regarded as an end or end-in-itself.) Or use. Is humans useful?

2. Is the developing fetus a human being?

And an additional question that should come up is:

3. Are humans intrinsically valuable?

Internationally the declaration of human rights recognizes the intrinsic moral value of human beings. This would imply that IF a developing fetus is a human being, then the fetus has intrinsic moral value, including the right to life. Remember!

Back to question #2 above, Is the developing fetus a human being?

Scientifically and medically the fetus at every stage of development is a human being. DNA, you need to understand that is human DNA and once combined (egg and sperm), at conception, all the traits of a human being are determined(Now this shows this is human life.). I do want to clarify, an embryo is not a baby, but it is a human being at a different stage. It would be absurd to kill a human just because the human being is not at a later stage of life, or calling it not human
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

After reading Pros response, I asked myself, as should the reader, what exactly is Pros argument to justify the claim that "abortion is murder".

Killing with intent is not necessarily murder

Pro says..."Fetuses are human. They are alive. Murder is a human killing another human full aware of what he did."

Lets put this in logical form.............

1) Fetuses are alive humans
2) Murder is knowingly killing another human
C) Therefore killing a fetus (abortion) is murder

I would argue that premise 2 is false. For example most acknowledge that killing in self defense is not murder. How about the recent activity of seals where they busted into a compound and shot Osama Bin Laden dead. If killing with intent was always murder then the seals should be doing hard time.

The point here is to show how its untenable to claim that killing with intent always means a murder has being committed. If this is accepted what this means is that the argument for killing a fetus is as such.........

1) Fetus is alive human being
2) Killing with intent is not necessarily murder
C) Therefore killing a fetus with intent is not necessarily murder

Possibility does not equal actuality & Intrinsic moral value

Pro says.."It would be absurd to kill a human just because the human being is not at a later stage of life, or calling it not human"

Its only absurd if you equate each stage of human development as equal, but they are not. For example its possible that Pro could join a terrorist group and participate in a terrorist attack on America and/or its allies. Now just because pro is a "possible" terrorist does that mean we should treat Pro as an "actual" terrorist and ship him of to a non disclosed location to be water boarded ? I think not.

Like wise even if a fully developed human being has certain intrinsic moral rights, it does not necessarily mean that a non fully developed human being has the same intrinsic moral rights.

If we are going to regard a fetus as having an intrinsic moral right to life because of having human dna and/or is in a process that may or may not result in a fully developed human being does that mean my sperm have an intrinsic right to life too ? Maybe I could invoke Pros argument here and say its absurd to kill a sperm just because the sperm is not at a later stage of life, or calling it not human".

I look forward to Pros reply.
Debate Round No. 2
CAPLlock

Pro

CAPLlock forfeited this round.
Illegalcombatant

Con

In case Pro continues the debate I'll quickly make my main points again.

Killing with intent is not necessarily murder

Seeing killing with intent is not necessarily murder......

1) Fetus is alive human being
2) Killing with intent is not necessarily murder
C) Therefore killing a fetus with intent is not necessarily murder

The point being that killing with intent is insufficent grounds to establish murder.

Possibility does not equal actuality & Intrinsic moral value

A possible human is not an actual human. A possible person is not an actual person.

Even if actual persons and/or humans have intrinsic moral value or rights it doesn't follow that possible humans or possible humans have the same value or rights.

Debate Round No. 3
CAPLlock

Pro

In case Pro continues the debate I'll quickly make my main points again.

Killing with intent is not necessarily murder
Pro-I never said that. Or at least i dont remeber. It should be added that it would be unlawful.
Seeing killing with intent is not necessarily murder......
Pro- let me fix this logic.
1) Fetus is alive human being
2) Killing with intent is immoral
murder is such.
C) Therefore killing a fetus with intent is murder

The point being that killing with intent is insufficent grounds to establish murder.
But isnt that murder?

Pro-We have alreadly said that a fetus is a human. Because its unlawful just to kill a human, this logic can be followed.

A fetus is a human
To kill a human with intention and it being unlawful
Unlawful is

Adjective:
Not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules.
Synonyms:
illegal - illicit - illegitimate - lawless - wrongful
Moral reason is not to kill
Abortion is murder.

Possibility does not equal actuality & Intrinsic moral value

A possible human is not an actual human. A possible person is not an actual person.

Even if actual persons and/or humans have intrinsic moral value or rights it doesn't follow that possible humans or possible humans have the same value or rights.
'Possible' humans are still humans. You have not proven that fetus' are not humans.
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their response.

Killing with intent is not necessarily murder

I don't think Pro has been able to refute this premise of mine. I used the example of killing in self defense and the recent activity of seals breaking into a compound and killing osma bin laden. Both these examples are clearly killing with intent but are not regarded as murder. So unless Pro adheres to some form of no killing under any circumstances pacifism then even Pro adheres to this whether they realize it or not, that killing with intent is not necessarily murder.

Pro rewrites premise 2 to say..."2) Killing with intent is immoral, murder is such."

No killing with intent is not necessarily immoral and/or murder. Once again unless Pro adheres to a form of non killing pacifism even they acknowledge this.

Seeing that Pros premise is said without exception, and we do have grounds for believing in various exceptions, premise 2 is false thus the argument is unsound.

Pro asks..."The point being that killing with intent is insufficient grounds to establish murder.
But isn't that murder?"

No, legally speaking, murder is defined as UNLAWFUL killing. This means there is such a thing as killing with intent that is LAWFUL (e.g the killing of osma bin laden) As Wikipedia says..."Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human being," [1]

I only say this for Pros consideration as I said at the start, this debate is what the law SHOULD be in relation to abortion not what the law is or isn't concerning abortion.

As I said before killing with intent is insufficient in of its self to establish "murder".

Possibility does not equal actuality & Intrinsic moral value

Pro says..."'Possible' humans are still humans. You have not proven that fetus' are not humans."

I never argued that possible humans are not humans, but I think we need to look at in what context that Pro regards a fetus as human as Pro said..."Scientifically and medically the fetus at every stage of development is a human being. DNA, you need to understand that is human DNA and once combined (egg and sperm), at conception,"

You will notice that Pros argues something possessing human dna means that thing is human. But this means my sperm is human as it contains human dna. If we grant that something containing human dna deserves such "right to life" then my sperm is has a right to life. This kind of reasoning is untenable.

Personhood

The problem I think is that Pro has not made a distinction between what is human in the sense of dna/biology and what is human in the sense of personhood. Its certainly not the case that just because something has human dna then that means its is a human person other wise each of my sperm is a human person.

Wikipedia makes this point under the heading question of personhood..."Establishing the point in time when a zygote/embryo/fetus becomes a "person" is open to debate since the definition of "personhood" is not universally agreed upon. Philosophers have traditionally declared that some characteristic of reason ought to be included in the definition of person. Although "person" is not defined in standard science texts, Biology Online offers this:

3, self-conscious being, as distinct from an animal or a thing; a moral agent; a human being; a man, woman, or child. Consider what person stands for; which, I think, is a thinking, intelligent being, that has reason and reflection. (locke)[33]" [2]

So with this in mind here are my main points......

1) Something possessing human dna does not mean its is a human person
2) Possible humans are not human persons
3) Any moral rights of human personhood do not necessarily mean that a possible human person gets the same rights (eg right to life), as this would be confusing possibility with actuality.

I look forward to Pros reply.

Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...


Debate Round No. 4
CAPLlock

Pro

Want to start a another debate?

I don't think Pro has been able to refute this premise of mine. I used the example of killing in self defense and the recent activity of seals breaking into a compound and killing osma bin laden. Both these examples are clearly killing with intent but are not regarded as murder. So unless Pro adheres to some form of no killing under any circumstances pacifism then even Pro adheres to this whether they realize it or not, that killing with intent is not necessarily murder.

Pro rewrites premise 2 to say..."2) Killing with intent is immoral, murder is such."

No killing with intent is not necessarily immoral and/or murder. Once again unless Pro adheres to a form of non killing pacifism even they acknowledge this.

Seeing that Pros premise is said without exception, and we do have grounds for believing in various exceptions, premise 2 is false thus the argument is unsound.

Pro asks..."The point being that killing with intent is insufficient grounds to establish murder.
But isn't that murder?"

No, legally speaking, murder is defined as UNLAWFUL killing. This means there is such a thing as killing with intent that is LAWFUL (e.g the killing of osma bin laden) As Wikipedia says..."Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human being," [1]

I only say this for Pros consideration as I said at the start, this debate is what the law SHOULD be in relation to abortion not what the law is or isn't concerning abortion.

As I said before killing with intent is insufficient in of its self to establish "murder".
Illegalcombatant

Con

I won't be adding anything new, just quickly summarizing my main points.

Killing with intent is not necessarily murder

I think I have shown sufficiently that this is the case, as such it can't be justified that killing a fetus or anything means it MUST be murder. Killing with intent in of its self does not establish murder.

Possibility does not equal actuality & Intrinsic moral value

A possible human (such as a fetus or sperm) is not the same as a fully developed human, as such it doesn't follow that any right to life of a developed human would then be extended to possible humans.

Personhood

Human Dna is not sufficient to establish personhood, as such any rights of personhood do not necessarily extend to something that has human dna such as a zygote,embryo or fetus.

Murder in the legal and moral sense

At the start of this debate I made the point that what we were arguing was what the law SHOULD be. I submit that Pro has not been able to make a good argument that abortion is immoral yet alone should be made unlawful.

I thank pro for the debate.

VOTE CON
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by CAPLlock 5 years ago
CAPLlock
No. I had a lack of time, and would like to finish in my fullest.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 5 years ago
Illegalcombatant
Are you conceding the debate Pro ?
Posted by CAPLlock 5 years ago
CAPLlock
Maybe we can make another debate off of this one.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 5 years ago
Illegalcombatant
We are already into it. But I can wait 1.5-2days before posting again if that helps.
Posted by CAPLlock 5 years ago
CAPLlock
May we finish this at a later time?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
CAPLlockIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit is the loss of conduct points. Con showed abortion isn't murder, by definition. Moreover, con proved killing isn't always murder, thus obliterating pros contentions.