The Instigator
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
Chuz-Life
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Abortion is murder in the US

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 4 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/14/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,329 times Debate No: 61551
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (120)
Votes (4)

 

Mikal

Con

Abortion - the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.

Murder - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Law - the whole system or set of rules made by the government of a town, state, country, etc.

US- United States of America

Pros BOP

Pro will automatically start his round after this in round 1 and pass in round 5 to even out the rounds. There will be no need for any more rounds as this debate is cut and dry. Pro claims abortion is murder in the US and defines murder by the unlawful act of killing someone else. I challenge him to this stance. Again he will begin immediately following this and pass in his final round to even out the rounds. No new arguments may me made in the final rounds.
Chuz-Life

Pro

Opening Comment

Anyone who has followed my recent exchanges with my opponent will note that it has been heated and near the point of hostility. I have decided to accept this challenge as an opportunity to further expound on the arguments that I have presented in my earlier debate with YYW [1] and in the forums [2]. I ask our readers and our prospective voters to remember that a voter in a DDO debate is not expected to vote their bias and or their preference (bias) in a debate. We are expected to vote on conduct, grammar, sources and on which contender posed the strongest arguments.

That said, I am not interested in this debate as a was to 'boost my elo' score as my opponent stated as his objective in the comments section of this debate [3]. I have had too many debates vote bombed already on DDO to ever expect a considerate analysis or an objectively sincere outcome again. My interest in these debates is to present the strongest arguments possible to support my views and claims in spite of the ways that I know the pro-abortion majority on DDO [4] will use their vote bombs and multiple accounts to try to discourage them.

One of my main objectives in this debate is to get my opponent to explain how a 'child in the womb' as defined by our Federal fetal homicide laws can be a human being / person enough to be recognized as a murdervictim when they are killed in a criminal act [5] - but not how they are not human beings/ persons (worthy of Constitutional protections) in any other situations like when they are being targeted in voluntary abortions.

This debate comes down to one thing - "Are the laws which make voluntary abortions legal - lawful?"

No-one disputes the fact that abortion is 'legal.' So legality is not what is being challenged. The question is - is it 'lawful.'

In my previous debate with YYW, I tried to illustrate this point by using the Dred Scott case and Slavery as an example [6]. In the Dred Scott case, many of the same tactics and language used by the proponents of abortion (today) were used to deny personhood and Constitutional rights to those targeted for slavery.


For example this language was used in the Dred Scott to deny rights to slaves; ". . . We think they [people of African ancestry] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. . . ."— Chief Justice RogerB. Taney, speaking for the majority

Notice how closely the same language was used to deny Constitutional rights to children in the womb -in Roe [7]; ". . .The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause... "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, in the Apportionment Clause, in the Migration and Importation provision, in the Emolument Clause, in the Electors provisions, in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, in the Extradition provisions, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

All this, together with our observation,supra,that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. . ." -MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, speaking for the majority


I ask my opponent, can we all agree now in hindsight that our Supreme Court got it wrong in the Dred Scott case?

We now have laws which make it a crime of murder - to criminally kill a 'child in the womb.' Those laws which were NOT present when the Roe decision was made - now define a human fetus as 'a child in the womb.[5]'


Furthermore, when the United States Supreme Court was deciding Roe, Justice Potter Stewart speculated [8];

________________________________________

Justice Potter Stewart: Well, if it were established that an unborn fetus is a person within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, you would have almost an impossible case here, would you not?

Mrs. Weddington [9]: I would have a very difficult case. [Laughter]

Justice Potter Stewart: You certainly would because you’d have the same kind of thing you’d have to say that this would be the equivalent to after the child was born.

Mrs. Weddington: That’s right.

________________________________________

In the forty plus years since Justice Stewart's speculations, our Federal Government and now more than 35 States [10] have enacted laws which define and recognize a 'child in the womb' as a human being and as a person - by making it a crime of murder to kill a 'child in the womb' in a criminal act [5].

In the years since the passing of our State and Federal Fetal Homicide laws, several people have already been arrested and convicted for their crimes against 'children in the womb' and although almost every murder conviction is subject to automatic appeals. . . to date, the Supreme Court has declined the chance to overturn those murder convictions and / or the chance to rule on the Constitutionality of our Fetal Homicide Laws [12].

The conclusion that leads to the allegation that 'Abortion is Murder' is Constitutionally based upon the findings that I have listed so far. My opponent may try to claim that my conclusions and allegations are baseless. However, I hope that our prospective voters will consider that these conclusions were also predicted by abortion proponents themselves.

For example, prior to the passing of the Federal "Unborn Victims of Violence Act [5]," former Planned Parenthood President - Gloria Feldt - predicted; "If they are able to make fetuses people in law with the same standing as women and men, then Roe will be moot, [12]"

She understood, as Sarah Weddington did, that the recognition and the establishing of the personhood of 'children in the womb' would automatically (Constitutionally) make abortions a crime of murder.

It is inevitable that our Supreme Court will one day have to reconcile the language and convictions for murder under our nations fetal homicide laws with their earlier rulings like Roe.

The Supreme Court (like my opponent) will be asked to explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough for a killer to be charged with MURDER for killing them in a criminal act. . . but not person enough to be afforded their 5th and 14th Amendment right to the EQUAL protections of our laws in any other time or circumstance.

I await my opponents responses.


[1] DDO debate with YYW - http://www.debate.org...

[2] DDO Forum - http://www.debate.org...

[3] Comments - http://www.debate.org...

[4] DDO's Pro-Abortion Bias - http://www.debate.org...

[5] Federal Fetal Homicide Law - http://www.law.cornell.edu...

[6] Dred Scott - http://www.streetlaw.org...

[7] Roe v wade - http://www.law.cornell.edu...

[8] Oral Arguments - http://stacytrasancos.com...

[9] Sarah Weddington - http://en.wikipedia.org...

[10] States Fetal Homicide Laws - http://www.ncsl.org...

[11] Upheld Convictions - http://www.nrlc.org...

[12] Constitutional Challenges - http://www.nrlc.org...[13] Gloria Feldt - http://www.newsweek.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Mikal

Con

C1) Reviewing the resolution at hand

The first thing I want to establish is the framework and resolution for the debate at hand. This is not a debate about whether or not abortion is moral or ethically correct, this debate is going to focus on whether or not abortion is actually murder in the United States. I would refer the judges to round 1 where the definitions for this debate can be found. So by looking over the definitions in R1 we can clearly see that abortion is the termination of a human pregnancy. Murder is the *unlawful* killing of one human being by another. A law is a whole system or set of rules that is made by a government, town, state, etc. And the Us is the United States. So in basic terms we are debating whether or not the act of terminating a human pregnancy(ie abortion) is the unlawful killing of someone.

Even my adversary notes this in his opening statements.

" This debate comes down to one thing - "Are the laws which make voluntary abortions legal - lawful?" [1]

He is basically saying that an abortion is unlawful. First we need to establish two key terms in this debate. As we can see from what a Law is, it is a set of rules established by a government, state, city etc.

So the definition of lawful would logically follow. along with something that is unlawful

Lawful - conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules. [2]
Unlawful - not lawful [3]

For something to be unlawful it is the absence of what is lawful, and lawful is something that is permitted by laws. Abortion under federal law, is allowed in the united States.

" The current judicial interpretation of the U.S. Constitution regarding abortion in the United States, following the Supreme Court of the United States's 1973 landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, and subsequent companion decisions, is that abortion is legal but may be restricted by the states to varying degrees. " [4][5] [6]

Through the case roe vs wade, abortion was finally legalized and laws vary state to state depending on when the fetus is considered viable. [7]


So i'm going to lay this out as a syllogism.

(P1) For something to be unlawful, it must be not be lawful
(P2) Abortion is lawful, and recognized so under federal and state law
(C) Abortion is lawful

My adversary is mistaking "unlawful" for "morally correct". His entire argument hinges around whether or not a fetus is a person and if a fetus is a person, then it is morally wrong to kill them. This is not to be mistaken with lawful. Any law that is established by a city, state, or government is in fact a law. Abiding by the law is being lawful, this however does not necessitate that laws are ethically or morally correct which is what my adversary is stating. However it does not change the fact that it is in fact a law.


C2) Right to Self Defense

Again I refer you to what is murder. Murder is the *unlawful* killing of someone.

Right of self defense - The right of self-defense (according to U.S. law) (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for civilians acting on their own behalf to engage in violence for the sake of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including the use of deadly force. [8]

Take for example ecoptic pregnancies or situations where the mothers life is in danger[9]. The baby is actually causing a great deal of harm to the mother, up to ending her life. Under federal law, she has the right to defend her body and kill the baby if so desired.

Note : My adversary is claiming that abortion is objectively unlawful. Meaning that abortions are always unlawful, because they are not abiding by the law. In situations where a fetus is causing the mother harm, that mother has the right to kill the baby to ensure her own life is saved.

C3) Morality =/= Lawful

This is the crux of where my adversaries arguments fail. He is mistaking lawful with what he considers to morally right or wrong. This is where he loses the debate, as I summed this up in C1. Because he thinks abortion is morally wrong, does not mean that abortion is in fact now lawful. If something is permitted under a certain system or branch of laws that allows it to occur, it is in fact lawful to follow that law. You are abiding by and acting under the permissions that law grants you, meaning that abortion is in fact lawful. This as I stated does not necessitate that all laws are objectively correct, but it does necessitate that abiding by all laws is objectively lawful.


C4) Concession by my adversary

When he states this, he concedes the debate

"No-one disputes the fact that abortion is 'legal.' So legality is not what is being challenged. The question is - is it 'lawful.'

legal - permitted by law; lawful: [10]

the very definition of the word legal shows that if something is legal it is in fact lawful. As legal means that something is permitted by the law. it would logically follow that doing something that is legal is in fact objectively lawful. This sentence ends the debate. He is admitting that abortion is lawful



Rebuttals

R1) Slavery

Slavery is now unlawful and this example is a horrible example to compare to current abortions. As the 13th amendment abolished slavery [10], it is objectively unlawful to have a slave because it is against the law. Prior to the slavery being abolished however, it was lawful to own slaves because it was permitted by law. My adversary again is equating to what he considered right and wrong to what is lawful. This has been throughout the debate, and still is a logical fallacy.

" I ask my opponent, can we all agree now in hindsight that our Supreme Court got it wrong in the Dred Scott case? "

Again this warps back the same crux and failure of my adversaries arguments. Even if the supreme court was wrong, does not change the fact of what a law is. My adversary is attempting to alter what the word legal, and lawful means. They have an objective meaning and that cannot be changed. He is trying to change legality with morality, and that is why he looses this debate.

R2) Hypocrisy about person hood.

My adversary is claiming that a fetus upon implantation is a person, but then uses fetal homicide laws to cite a person hood. I refer you to his own source [10].

This is a direct contradiction with what he is stating. Fetal homoicde laws, are what I stated earlier. Meaning the viability of a fetus is determined by the state. By bringing this up, he is altering that a fetus is a person upon implantation and stating that the state and legal laws have the right to determine when a fetus is a person. This contradicts his entire argument.

Again abortion is allowed under fetal homicide laws, I have no idea why he is saying it is not. It is dependent on when the state considers the fetus to be viable. So an abortion prior to the point of viability is permitted and lawful, while an abortion after that time is unlawful or not permitted by state law. This again goes in my favor, and contradicts every argument he has made thus far.



Conclusion

This entire debate is a truism, as my adversary is claiming that morality necessitates legality which is a logically fallacy.




[1] Round 1 from my adversary
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4] http://www.dissentmagazine.org...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://www.ushistory.org...
[7] http://www.guttmacher.org...
[8] https://www.princeton.edu...
[9] http://www.mayoclinic.org...
[10] http://www.ncsl.org...
Chuz-Life

Pro

Round 2 - Rebuttals

It's good to see that my opponent agrees with me when I say that " This debate comes down to the question - "Are the laws which make voluntary abortions legal - lawful? [R1] " I am anxious to see if I can get Con to agree that Un-Constitutional laws are unlawful laws.

My opponent begins this round with a semantic argument about legal terms and with an attempt to argue that all that is legal is also lawful. Though that is not what my opponent claims directly, that is the gist of what he is getting at.

Where Con claims that " For something to be unlawful it is the absence of what is lawful, and lawful is something that is permitted by laws. Abortion under federal law, is allowed in the united States. . . " He is only partially correct. My opponent has either ignored or omitted the significance of the Constitutionality of the laws in question.

Indeed, using my opponent's logic, Slavery would be considered 'lawful' by him today if laws were simply passed again to make it 'legal' again - to buy, sell and to own human beings. As though basic human and Constitutional rights can be 'lawfully' legislated away. I ask my opponent and our voters how the Constitutionality of any law can ever be challenged - if the only requirement for something to be 'lawful' is for it to be 'legal?'

In my opinion, Constitutionality matters.

For my opponent's syllogism at the beginning of this round to be valid, all the laws being cited would have to first be Constitutional. I contend that the laws which make it legal to deprive a 'child in the womb' of their Constitutional right to the Equal Protections of our laws are themselves contrary to the intent of the Constitution. Un-Constitutional laws are Unlawful laws [2].

Where Con claims that I am mistaking unlawful for "morally correct" Nothing could be further from the truth. My concerns in this debate have nothing to do with morality or with the moral aspects of abortion. While Con is partially correct when he surmises that my 'entire argument hinges around whether or not a fetus is a person and if a fetus is a person.' I do not argue that it is 'morally wrong to kill them.' I only argue that it is OBJECTIVELY a violation of the child's basic human and Constitutional rights.

I argue that a human being in the fetal stage of their life is a 'person' and that it is unlawful and Un-Constitutional to deny to them the Equal Protections of our laws. Would that my opponent could appreciate the difference between a moral argument and an objective Constitutional observation.

Con's claim that "Abiding by the law is being lawful. . ." is only a true statement when the laws actually conform to our Constitution. We (the people) have no right to violate the Constitutional rights of others and to then shield our actions behind un-Constitutional laws. Do we?


--------------------------------------


Self Defense - response


In my opponent's 'self defense' argument, he again begins with the claim that an abortion can not possibly be 'unlawful' if and when abortions are 'legal.' He never considers the Constitutionality of the abortion laws (rulings) in his argument(s).

For what it is worth to my opponent, I am a very strong advocate for the right that we all have to defend ourselves and also to defend the lives of others. This includes the right to defend the rights and lives of 'children in the womb.'

It is erroneous thinking to claim that 'everyone has a right to defend their self' while excluding any human beings (including the weakest among us) from that list.

Con uses some peculiar language in his arguments about abortion and 'self defense.' My opponent refers to the pregnant woman - during an 'ectopic pregnancy' as "the MOTHER." He says in his claim that "she has the right to defend her body and kill the baby if so desired."

I thank Con for his recognition of the fact that her child in the womb is her "baby" but I have to ask my opponent why he feels that "babies" are not entitled to the same Constitutional "equal protections" of our laws that the 'mother' is? Does my opponent claim to be an advocate for 'equal rights?' If so, how do you explain / justify the exclusion? Why does the mother have a right to the of her life and body - but her child (baby) does not have the same?

How is that in any way - "equal rights?"

Now, I must correct some of Con's claims that he made in his "Note" section. While my opponent is correct when he concludes that my view is that "abortion is objectively unlawful. . . " Con is incorrect in the next part when he says "Meaning that abortions are always unlawful, because they are not abiding by the law."

It may surprise my opponent to learn that I do not hold the view that ALL abortions are unlawful / murders. It's true that all human abortions are homicides. However, I do not deny that homicides in some cases can be legally and (especially) Constitutionally justified. I have never once claimed that ALL abortions are murders or that they are ALL unlawful, unconstitutional or unjustified.

Pro does not challenge the fact that there are certain (rare) medical situations where allowing a pregnancy to continue to term may result in grave bodily harm and / or the death of the mother. Pro does not deny that there are or may be cases where an abortion CAN be both legally and Constitutionally justified. Those are the exceptions. They are NOT the abortions that I am claiming are UnConstitutional, Unlawful and Murderous.

If my opponent wants to claim that ALL abortions are acts of self defense, then we need to delve deeper into the details of what the criteria for the use of deadly force in an act of self defense really is. I am more than prepared for that discussion. I hope Con will agree that the right to self defense does not include the right to lure or to entrap someone into a position against ourselves, that we all have a duty to use deadly force ONLY as a last resort and that we do not have the right to use 'excessive force.'

_______________________


The Non-Concession

As for my opponent's claim that I am conceding this debate by acknowledging the fact that abortions are 'legal?' I don't know how many times I have to repeat the fact that 'legal' and 'lawful' are not always the same thing. Slavery is the strongest example that I can give for how something can be both 'legal' and 'unlawful' at the same time. My opponent's semantic arguments to the contrary not withstanding.

_______________________


About Slavery


Where Con claims that slavery was 'lawful' prior to the time it was abolished, I can't disagree more. My opponent is seems to believe that the Un-Constitutional denial of a persons rights can be made 'lawful' by simply passing a law that denies to them their rights. That is the opposite of how our Justice system is supposed to work. In the United States, the Constitutional rights of the minorities are protected against the whims of the majority.

It is an objective fact that our 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution - establish the rights of all persons to the equal protections of our laws. It is not simply a 'want' based on morality. If a 'child in the womb' is a 'person' - then they are OBJECTIVELY automatically entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

It is an objective fact - that our fetal homicide laws define a 'child in the womb' AS a 'child in the womb' and make it a crime of 'murder' to intentionally kill one in a criminal act. It is also not simply a want based on morality.

It is also an objective fact (not a want based on morality) that several people have already been arrested, charged and convicted of the MURDERS of children in the womb by criminal abortions [3].

In those cases, even if my opponent does not agree that any other abortions are murders. . . Con must agree that those abortions are murders and that makes the statement "abortion is murder" - objectively true (at least) for those cases.

____________________________


Hypocrisy?

It's strange to see my opponent attribute things to me that I have never claimed. I have never claimed that 'personhood' begins at 'implantation.' In fact, I have a debate here on DDO where I have argued extensively against that claim. The personhood for 'children in the womb' is established by the fact that our FEDERAL Fetal Homicide Law not only recognizes and defines a 'child in the womb' AS "a child in the womb in ANY stage of development!" and as "a human being" - the FEDERAL LAW also already makes it a crime of 'MURDER' to 'intentionally kill' one in a criminal act. And again, that is an objective fact and it's not simply a want based upon morality.

The definition of murder that Con provided himself is; "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." It is by making it a crime of murder to kill a 'child in the womb' in a criminal act - that the personhood of the child killed is being established. My opponent may be quick to point out the fact that our fetal homicide laws (for now) make exceptions to keep abortions "legal." However, as I showed earlier - legality does not always make something 'lawful' in the way my opponent claims.

I ask my opponent and our voters; "Are UnConstitutional laws - LAWFUL laws?" My answer is no. Because, "An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed. . . [4]"

[R1] Con's Arguments Round One

[2] Constitutional Law - http://freedom-school.com...

[3] Abortion Pancake - http://aattp.org...

[4] When a Law is not a Law - https://supreme.justia.com...



Debate Round No. 2
Mikal

Con

I can tell right away, the rest of this debate is going to be pointless


R1) What is legal is lawful

This is the entire failure in my adversaries argument, and where he conceded the debate. He said he did not concede but by saying abortion is legal by extension he is admitting it is lawful. His entire premise is that something can be legal, and not lawful which is false. Let me lay this out in a syllogism.

(P1) Everything that is legal is lawful
(P2) Abortion is legal
(C) Therefore abortion is lawful

My adversary is asserting that things can be unlawful if they are legal, which is directly changing the definition of what lawful and legal mean. The entire crux of his argument hinges on morality, and not what is lawful. Just to be clear what is lawful =/= always moral. He is literally changing the terms and trying to argue that something is lawful necessitates that it is moral or ethical. This is false in every way imaginable by the very definitions of law and lawful.

Abortion is passed and allowed under federal law

Since it is allowed under federal law, the act of abortion a fetus is permitted under law

Since the act of abortion is allowed under federal law, it is a lawful act.

My adversary has to respond to the very definition of what lawful entails, which is as I cited in my previous round is as follows

Lawful - conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules.

Abortion is recognized by federal law and is permitted, therefor it is in fact lawful. Since my adversary agrees that it is legal, it logically follows that it is lawful to abide by what is legal. As what is legal does in fact necessitate what is lawful. He can't just ignore the definition and pretend that is not what it means. He can apply any definition to anything with that logic.


R2) Abortion is a constitutional and federal law

Let's review what my adversary is saying. He is *assuming*, that a child is a person and under a law that is established by the constitution they have the right to life. Then sites fetal laws in his previous round to show that this is the case. Fetal laws, as I cited vary state to state. Meaning what defines a person as a person, under my adversary's own citations vary depending on throw the state labels a fetus.

Now let's review what the constitution saws about a fetus

14th amendment

" All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " [1]

Right off the start, I want to show that the attempt to justify life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness points to all person that are born. A fetus is not born, but has the capability of being born. The other law my adversary likes to cite and is referring to is Us code 1841 in regards to unborn children. [2]

He likes to start off by citing this

" Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section. "[2]

The applies this law to the mothers. Where he fails to misunderstand how the law is written is the part that says that violates any provision of the laws listed in subsection b. Sub section b specifically accounts for abortion and the mothers right to abort a fetus. Sub section a is directly applied if someone where to say kill the mother, and the fetus died with it when it was considered viable. That would account as man slaughter, under fetal state homicide laws. He is misrepresenting that entire subsection to the point it hurts.

Then we have Roe vs Wade

" Roe vs Wade which occurred January 22,1973 is where the supreme court struck down an 1857 Texas statute that made abortion illegal except where the life of the mother was in danger. The Court's opinion, as written by Justice harry a. blackmun, set forth guidelines for the drafting of future state legislation on the issue. In a long and detailed opinion, the Court specified the points during a woman's pregnancy when the interests of the state in the health of the mother and of the fetus emerge. Roe established the parameters of the abortion debate for decades to come." [4]

This case the primary reason abortion was legalized in the United States. So we can see under federal law, constitutional laws, and even state laws abortion is considered legal and therefore lawful. He then asks this

" I ask my opponent and our voters how the Constitutionality of any law can ever be challenged "

The entire preface under the constitution is vague, which is what led to Roe vs Wade to begin with, as the 14th amendment was vague enough to leave the supreme court in agreement that not letting a woman have an abortion violated her right to privacy and her body. How are laws challenged, because they are based on interpretation if they are not written in specific details. Laws as everything else evolve to fit the time and period in which they are needed. The part about the right to life which as I cited above was specifically referring to persons that were born, was vague enough to grant a woman the right to have an abortion because the supreme court decided it violated her ninth amendment rights. Laws without specifics can be routed in subjectivity and interpretation, this is a common concept with the legal system. Its why there are lawyers and people who study law, to find interpretations that benefit whomever they are defending. The case of Roe vs Wade not only established that a fetus could be aborted up until the first tri mester, it promised that woman the right to so under federal law. So yes a fetus is not protected by the constitution, and whatever is legal is lawful. Laws do change, and are re written, so they are precise and applicable depending on when they are needed. Look at the Enron scandal where accounting was a primary reason to the deceit behind it. Because of that situation laws like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act are passed in order to make sure it does not happen again. The same is true with slavery. In any given time where something is legal, it is a truism and a fact that it is lawful to abide by what is legal. Abortion in every sense of the matter is legal, and a law therefore it is lawful and not murder.

R3 ) Self Defense

My adversary cites this to start his rebuttal

" This includes the right to defend the rights and lives of 'children in the womb. "

Saying he is an advocate to defend the life of a child in the womb, but misses the point that fatal pregnancies result int he mothers right to defend her own body because of the child that is in the womb. If someone is inflicting harm upon your body to the point of death, it is our right to self defense to defend our body. My adversary keeps asserting that a fetus or baby is promised certain laws under the constitution but has failed to properly show it. Even if we consider the baby as a person and one that is about to be born, the fact would remain that baby is damaging a mothers body to the point of death. That baby is the aggressor upon the mother, and at that stage she is promised the right to defend her body from the aggressor. What is the baby not promised rights at that point? Because the baby is the same as a murder, he is about to kill someone and due to our right to self defense the mother at that point can abort the fetus to save her own life.

He then states this

" It may surprise my opponent to learn that I do not hold the view that ALL abortions are unlawful / murders"

This is the second concession of the debate. I would refer my adversary to the resolution that he wanted to debate. Abortion, or the act of abortion is murder. Since my adversary has just conceded that not all abortions are not murders, then his entire BOP is shattered. That is like saying sex is morally wrong, but it is okay to have sex with hot girls. Abortion is an objective term which is the termination of a pregnancy, and per the debate resolution is murder. If committing an abortion is not murder in a certain scenario, then it abridges the resolution. This is the second concession by my adversary


R4) Slavery

Con asserts that slavery was not lawful prior to the time it was abolished. This as I have cited in my prior round is false. Something cannot be unlawful if there is no law that is stopping it from occurring. The very definition of lawful, entails there must be a law.

The perception of the laws at the time, did not define certain people as persons. That was the consensus among the majority. In a legal and lawful sense, an appeal to majority is often how laws are decided and interpreted. That does not mean they are correct, but it does mean that is how the law was perceived. Thus until the slavery was abolished it was considered legal by the majority based on the interpretation they had of the Constitution. So yes slavery was lawful at a certain point in time.

the other points are irrelevant at this point because they stray from the resolution and i'm out of room

Conclusion

My main points remain uncontested, as my adversary is trying to later what the definition of lawful means. He has admitted that abortion is legal but fails to understand what is legal is lawful by definition. He is trying to argue for ethics and not what is lawful. Abiding by the law is lawful.





[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu...
[2] http://www.law.cornell.edu...
[3] http://www.ushistory.org...
[4] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Chuz-Life

Pro

Before I begin my arguments for this round I feel the need to apologize my my opponents conduct and obvious frustration. I for one do not share Con's attitude that this debate (one that he initiated himself) is 'pointless.'

Legal v Lawful

It is abundantly clear that Con still believes that anything which is 'legal' is automatically 'lawful.' This has been the biggest sticking point in our debate. So, I will try again this round to present the most irrefutable explanation I can to help Con see that neither laws nor Supreme Court's rulings are infallible. I thought that the injustice of Slavery and the Dred Scott case [1] made this point well enough but I'll try to make the same point another way.

Legal is Not Always Lawful

In this earlier DDO debate between my opponent and DDO member Anonymous-Scientist. Though it's not the greatest example for proving this point, I hope it will suffice. In the debate, User 'Anonymous-Scientist' suggested that the punishment for someone convicted of Rape should be castrated [2]. My opponent quickly cited the language of the 8th Amendment that prohibits the use of 'cruel and un-usual punishment.'

This is significant and interesting because it shows that my opponent does understand that any law which runs contrary to what the Constitution says would not be 'lawful.' However, I will ask my opponent if he believes that Castration would be 'lawful' if a State were to pass a law making it 'legal' to castrate convicted rapists.

I ask our voters to objectively consider how Con's syllogism is wrong - when he claims that "Everything legal is lawful." The evidence shows that Con knows or should know better. That un-Constitutional laws can be passed but they would NOT be lawful if they are un-Constitutional.

In his frustration, Con lashes out and claims that my arguments are based upon a moral premise instead of a Constitutional basis. However, that is not the case. Our Constitution says that 'all persons' are entitled to the 'equal protections' of our laws [3]. As I showed in our previous round, that is an objective fact. It is not speculation of conjecture.

My opponent lamented:

"Abortion is passed and allowed under federal law"

True.

"Since it is allowed under federal law, the act of abortion a fetus is permitted under law"

True again.

"Since the act of abortion is allowed under federal law, it is a lawful act."

UNLESS that law is itself Un-Constitutional!

The fallacious attempt that Con is making is called an "Appeal to Authority [4]." In his view, abortions are legal and Constitutionally justified ONLY because the laws say they are legal. And his response to my challenges of those laws - is to claim that they are the final word unto themselves. That is a classic appeal to authority which is akin to using a Bible as the final word on the validity of itself.

Con's claim that "Lawful = conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules. . ." is only true if and when the laws are Constitutional. As I cited in my previous round (and as Con showed in his debate about rapists) - an Un-Constitutional Law is not valid and would not be 'lawful.'

"Federal laws are also the supreme law of the land if, and only if, they do not conflict with the US Constitution. That fact was also universally accepted by the framers of the Constitution. They made it abundantly clear during the Constitution Convention debates that federal laws are null and void if they conflict with the Constitution. [5]"

______________________________________________________


R2) Abortion is a constitutional and federal law

In his arguments, Con posted; "Let's review what my adversary is saying. He is *assuming*, that a child is a person and under a law that is established by the constitution they have the right to life."

Con, I am not making an assumption. The FEDERAL fetal homicide laws DEFINE a 'child in the womb in ANY stage of development' as 'a human being.' That is an objective fact. That same FEDERAL law [6] makes it a crime of MURDER to 'intentionally kill' a 'child in the womb' during a criminal act. The definition of murder that Con provided himself (along with others) - also establish the fact that the victims of MURDER under our fetal homicide laws are 'human beings.' As such, they are 'persons.'

I ask my opponent and our voters again. "How can it be that a 'child in the womb' is a 'human being / person' enough to be a MURDER victim when they are killed in a criminal act. . . but they are not human beings / persons when their mothers go to an abortion clinic and PAY someone to kill them (sic) legally?

_____________________________________


The 14th Amendment


My opponent cites and then attempts to analyze the text of the 14th Amendment. He indicates that he believes it only applies to persons who are born. However, the 14th Amendment only uses the word and condition of being 'born' to establish "Citizenship." It does not say that a 'person' must be 'born' in order to have a right to the 'equal protections' of our laws.

This is precisely how our Fetal Homicide Laws come into play. The crime of killing a 'child in the womb' under those laws - is a crime of MURDER. Obviously, a 'child in the womb' that is killed in a crime has not been 'born' yet. Correct? So, I ask my opponent, how a person can be charged with the MURDER of a 'child in the womb' that hasn't been 'born?' The answer and conclusion is simple. "Birth (aka parturition [7]) is NOT the requirement for personhood that Con claims it is.

My opponents (confusing) comments in his analysis shows that he does comprehend the language of the FEDERAL "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" at all. Not only does it specifically say that a 'child in the womb' is 'a human being' in 'ANY stage of development . .' it says in the text that Con himself omitted. "C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111 [6]."

SECTION 1111 is the section of the FEDERAL code that pertains to the crimes of MURDER [8]. It is my opponent, Con who is trying to mis-represent the language and the conclusions that can be made from the Federal Fetal Homicide Law (U.S. Code 1814) - Not me.

It's strange that my opponent continues to resort to quoting Roe - as an authority unto itself, when it is being challenged. As I stated earlier and in my other debate with YYW [9] - Justice Potter Stewart made the point perfectly clear when Roe was being decided - that a State (or the Federal Government) could later establish personhood for 'children in the womb.[10]'

https://www.youtube.com...


Con can claim that the Constitution is vague. Can he deny that subsequent laws that have been passed in the time since Roe have been less ambiguous? If a murder charge does not establish the fact that it was a human being / person that was killed in a crime... then what does?
__________________________________________

Self Defense Continued

It's clear from my opponents ramblings in his section about self defense - that he didn't read or comprehend my own arguments earlier. I said that I can appreciate and even support the use of 'deadly force' when it can be 'justified' in acts of self defense. My opponent and I just don't agree that all abortions meet the legal criteria for the use of deadly force as an act of self defense. .

Con's claims that I have conceded this entire debate by agreeing that some abortions in EXTREME cases might be justified is growing tiresome. All abortions are homicides. Some homicides might be justified (as self defense) while other might not be. It is NOT an 'all or nothing' game (sic).

______________________________

Slavery Again


Con again claims that "Slavery was lawful" - during the time that slaves Constitutional rights were being denied and people could "legally" own slaves. He maintains this view despite my many attempts to educate him on his UnConstitutional laws are neither valid nor lawful. I ask my opponent why historical slavery is globally recognized as a "Crime against humanity" if it was (at least in his view) no crime at all - during the time it was 'legal?'

______________________

My opponent only assumes that his points have not been addressed. They have been and they will continue to be. I await his further consideration of those arguments for this round.



[1] Dred Scott - http://www.streetlaw.org...

[2] Rapists should be castrated - http://www.debate.org...

[3] 14th Amendment - http://www.law.cornell.edu...

[4] Appeal to Authority - http://www.nizkor.org...

[5] Supremacy Clause - http://constitutionmythbuster.com...

[6] 18 U.S. Code § 1841 - http://www.law.cornell.edu...

[7] Parturition - http://www.medterms.com...

[8] 18 U.S. Code § 1111 (MURDER)- http://www.law.cornell.edu...

[9] Debate with YYW - http://www.debate.org...

[10] Roe Audio - https://www.youtube.com...

[11] Crimes against humanity - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Mikal

Con

R1) Legal and Lawful

Again this is now tedious because my adversary is still trying to alter the basic concept of what legal and lawful mean. If this were allotted he could assign his own definition to any word that is general. I would ask the voters to review what the following definitions actually entail

Legal - permitted by law; lawful: [1]

Lawful - allowed or permitted by law; not contrary to law [2]

Murder - The unlawful killing of another human being [3]

Abortion is legal, as I have cited in my previous rounds. This is a truism, if something is legal it is by definition lawful [1]. Since abortion is lawful because it is legal [1][2], by extension it is not murder per my adversaries definitions. Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. A fetus has to be shown to be a human being, and even if it is a human being by my adversaries own choice of definitions abortion is lawful and legal so the act of killing the fetus is not unlawful.

I would ask my adversary to review what a law is.

Law - the whole system or set of rules made by the government of a town, state, country, etc. [4]

So to answer my adversaries question, yes any rules or set of rules that is made by a consensus among a state or group of people is lawful to the people that abide and live under that specific state or group. Abiding by a law is lawful, this is just repetitive at this point so I will not expound on it. My adversary is still mistaking what he considers right and wrong, to what lawful actually means. He cannot change the definition of a word to fit what he wants it to mean. Lawful and legal necessitate each other and have an objective meaning no matter how much he doesn't want them too. My adversary has still failed to refute my syllogism or the basic premise behind this concept with an attempt to change the definition of lawful. I repeat for the 100th time, everything that is legal is lawful by definition.

He claims he is not arguing from a moral standpoint but that is false, his entire argument is confusing what he thinks is right or wrong with what is legal and lawful.

R2) Constitution and abortion

Just to state this, by no means is a fetus guaranteed any rights by the constitution as this is referring to people that are born or naturalized into the united states. He is essentially arguing any law or act that permits or allows abortion to be legal is unconstitutional which is a flat contradiction and is just wrong. The Supreme Court has the right and the ability to determine certain laws and bring them under review and question. This is most commonly refereed to as judicial review .

Judicial Review - "Judicial review is the idea, fundamental to the US system of government, that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judicial branch. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to take an active role in ensuring that the other branches of government abide by the constitution. Judicial review was established in the classic case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)." [5]

They ruled and found that laws which restrict abortion before a fetus is viable is a violation of a women's constitutional rights because doing so violates women's right to medical privacy, and by that extension restriction of abortion is unconstitutional which is the primary foundation of roe vs wade.

So abortion is not on legal but constitutional as well as empowered and allowed by the supreme court decision and interpretation of the constitution. Therefore it is lawful in all sense of the term, as long as it occurs before a states viability and fetal homicide laws occur.


R3) Code 1841

My adversary keeps siting sub section A, and misinterpreted what the law is actually meant to entail. I have stated earlier and it is a fact, that this law applies to someone to who is causing harm to the mother and therefore causing harm to the fetus.

Let's review the second part to sub section A which my adversary is claiming is a federal law

" Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother. " [6]

then sub section b (i)

" the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant" [6]

and sub section b (ii)

" the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child. "

This entire law he is citing is referring to someone that causes harm to the mother and therefore kills or injures the child (which in actually has to be past the stage of viability). The initial difference is that the fetus is inside the mothers body, which the supreme court ruled if the fetus is not considered viable via fetal homicide laws, she is allotted the right to abortion. Someone injuring the mother and the fetus is denying the fetus the potential to have life and removing the mothers constitutional right of choice. He is misrepresenting this entire law and what it actually entails. You can logically and clearly see by sub section i and ii, this entire law is in specific reference to someone that is attacking or harming a pregnant woman.


R4) Self Defense

My adversary concedes that abortion can be used in acts of self defense, and by acknowledging this he defeats his own resolution. The resolution is that abortion is murder. If he can admit that some abortions are not murder, and lawful then he contradicts his BOP. Abortion in the general sense is unlawful according to my adversary. By saying some abortions are lawful, he is defeating his own resolution. At this point the resolution has changed to abortion is murder, to unjustified abortions are murder which is an entirely different topic. By stating and agreeing to my point, he concedes that not all abortions are murder, and therefore abortion can be lawfully justified and not murder by extension.

He then states that some some abortions are justified but are still murder, but by accepting that someone has the right to self defense (which he concedes is legal and lawful) then he is admitting that abortion under self defense is not murder. Let me lay it out in a syllogsim

(P1) The right to self defense grants permission to kill legally in self defense
(P2) Abortions that danger a mothers life cause the mother to act in self defense and kill the fetus
(C) Abortion a fetus under self defense is not murder, because it is lawful and legal under the parameters of this debate

Reviewing the definitions

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. Self defense is lawful, and self defense in abortion is lawful. Therefore some abortions are lawful and not murder, and my adversary concedes this debate.



R5) Slavery

I am not going back into laws but i'm going to treat this as a dropped argument as he my adversary still has no properly responded to it or even addressed the key point. The perception of what the constitution stated was an objective fact at the time slavery was imposed, and it was a fact that slavery was objectively legal and permitted under the constitution based on peoples perception of it. As the founding fathers, and the government have the right to determine laws, they determined that slavery should be legal. As it was legal it was lawful. This is a truism given the time frame of it.


Conclusion

We are still doing the same song and dance and this is growing redundant. My adversary lacks a fundamental understanding of what is moral and what is lawful. He has mistaken the two the entire debate and continues to mistake them.


[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] http://www.law.cornell.edu...
[4]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[5] http://www.law.cornell.edu...
[6] http://www.law.cornell.edu...
Chuz-Life

Pro

Closing Recap of Arguments

Per the rules listed in round one, this is my last round, I will not be posting any new arguments in this round. I would like to thank my opponent for challenging me with this debate and I would like to thank those who have been following along with the intention of (maybe) voting at the end.

We have both shared a lot of material to support our views and we have drifted a bit off topic more than once. (I blame sleep deprivation for some of that.) So, I will use this round to repeat and to clarify some of my arguments already made.

In round one, my opponent said; "Pro claims abortion is murder in the US and defines murder by the unlawful act of killing someone else. I challenge him to this stance. [R1]" The question becomes; "How are abortions murder in the United States?"

To answer that question, we have to first establish the fact that a human being in the fetal stage of their life is 'a human being.' A 'person.'

To establish that fact, I cited the text of the FEDERAL law "18 U.S. Code § 1841" [2] section (d). Section (d) defines an unborn child as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at ANY stage of development, who is carried in the womb." I also quoted the text from that same FEDERAL law (section a-2-c) which says "If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall be punished as provided under sections 1111,1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being. "

I then shared the link to FEDERAL Law - U.S. Code 1111 [3] as it pertains to the crime of MURDER.

In short, 18 U.S. Code § 1841 (passed long after the Roe v Wade decision) not only defines a human fetus as 'a child in the womb' and as "a human being in ANY stage of development" - it also makes it a crime of MURDER to "intentionally kill an unborn child" during a criminal act.

As I indicated in round one of this debate [R1], this (above cite) is precisely the kind of law that Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart was anticipating - when he said "if it were established that an unborn fetus is a person within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, you would have almost an impossible case (for abortion) here, would you not?"

I tried to make it clear to Con that Supreme Court Justice Potter was in arguably aware of the fact that once it is established that a human being in the fetal stage of their life is a "person" under law, they would automatically be entitled to the same Constitutional rights and 'equal protections' that all other persons are entitled to and the pro-abortion attorney (Sarah Weddington) agreed [4]. https://www.youtube.com...

I tried to make my opponent aware of the fact that even the former Planned Parenthood President (Gloria Feldt) echoed the same conclusion - when she said; "If they are able to make fetuses people in law with the same standing as women and men, then Roe will be moot.[5]" Gloria Feldt made that comment in opposition to the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" that was about to be passed into law. And she lost in her efforts to stop the passing of that law.

All of the above was proffered in this debate - to show that the personhood of 'children in the womb' in 'any stage of development' has now been LEGALLY established - at least for the 'children in the womb' who are victims in a criminal act.

While my opponent is quick to point it out - that the same Federal Law (18 U.S. Code § 1841) also makes exceptions to its own conclusions to (for now) keep abortions legal and to prohibit the prosecution of women who seek abortions. . . My opponent seems oblivious to my repeated efforts to inform him - that those exceptions are what is being challenged as Un-Constitutional in this debate.

The Constitutional Case

Throughout this debate, I have tried to share arguments and sources to enlighten my opponent on the fact that UnConstitutional laws (and or rulings) are null and void [6]. I tried repeatedly, using the injustice of Slavery as an example - to make the case for how 'legal does not always mean lawful.' My opponent offers only a semantic case using dictionary definitions to argue to the contrary. I have argued repeatedly that the Constitution matters and that it can not be so easily dismissed but that doesn't stop my opponent from removing the Constitutionality aspect away from his "syllogism [R2]" in round two, completely. I ask our voters to consider that semantic arguments such as the one posed by my opponent do not take place in a vacuum. Objectively, "that which is Legal is only lawful when the law itself is Constitutional. "Legally" (sic) denying basic human and Constitutional rights to any group of human beings is not lawful because it is not Constitutional."

I have shared the relevant text of our Constitution in this debate to show how 'all persons' are Constitutionally entitled to the 'equal protections of our laws'. I have shown how our State and Federal Fetal Homicide laws (as Gloria Feldt and Justice Potter predicted) do in fact establish the personhood of children in the womb. I have directed my opponent to cases where people are already being charged and convicted with MURDER for illegally aborting 'children in the womb.[7]' https://www.youtube.com...

My opponent may claim that those "Abortions are Murders" only in the context that the woman is victimized too. However, that claim would not be true. There is nothing in the Fetal Homicide laws that would prohibit the prosecution of the women themselves - for their part in illegal (sic) abortions. Indeed illegal (sic) abortions can be prosecuted as murders - even when the women WANTS the abortion herself [8].

I ask our voters how many examples will it take where someone has already been charged with the MURDER of a 'child in the womb' will it take for you to agree that the statement 'Abortion is Murder' is true - at the very least in those cases?

What will it take for you to finally see that UnConstitutional Laws that deny any group of human beings their rights and protections is not lawful because they are not laws at all - if they are not Constitutional [6].

____________________



Closing Remarks


I remind our voters of the fact that this is a DDO debate. No matter the outcome, the allegation that "abortions are murders" will continue to be made as more and more laws are being passed that establish the personhood of 'children in the womb' and as more and more people are arrested and prosecuted for the MURDERS of children in the womb.

Before you vote, I ask each of our voters to consider this question quietly and honestly for yourself.

"How can a child in the womb be legally considered a 'person' enough that a stranger killing them (even) by accident in a criminal act can be prosecuted for MURDER. . . but that same child is somehow NOT a person if the mother targets them for an abortion?"

Thanks to my opponent again for sending this challenge. Win or lose, this allegation will not be going away. There is a serious contradiction in our laws and sooner or later our Supreme Court will have to reconcile their historical ruling on Roe with the more recent laws and criminal convictions under fetal homicide laws that already make it a crime of murder to criminally kill a child in the womb.

R1 - This debate, round one

R2 - This debate, round two

[2] 18 U.S. Code § 1841 - http://www.law.cornell.edu...

[3] 18 U.S. Code § 1111 - http://www.law.cornell.edu...

[4] Roe v Wade oral arguments - https://www.youtube.com...

[5] Gloria Feldt Comments - http://www.newsweek.com...

[6] When a Law is not a Law - https://supreme.justia.com...

[7] Kansas - Abortion Murder - https://www.youtube.com...

[8] Stomped Out - http://www.houstonpress.com...

Debate Round No. 4
Mikal

Con

I would like to thank my adversary as well for a polite and well thought out debate. While I do not agree with his position, this has been a great debate.

As this last round is closing and not for arguments I am going to just go over the material thus far presented in this debate.

The main thing we need to review in this debate is what is lawful vs what is right. My adversaries entire position is summed up with the fact that he believes the constitution bans abortion, so therefore abortion is not lawful. Outside of this one point the rest of his arguments are confusing what is lawful with what is moral.

Review 1 ) The Constitution does not ban abortion.

As I have stated over and over throughout this debate, the pursuit to life, liberty, and happiness are promised to those that are born in the US. This is a right promised to all living persons and a fetus by no measure is protected under the guidelines of this law. Even if we consider the fact that a Fetus use to be protected in most cases, we have to acknowledge the power of the Supreme Court and Judicial review.

As I stated in my prior round, this is kind of ironic that my adversary is arguing for constitutional right while criticizing the decision of the supreme court in cases of abortion. After review Roe vs Wade and using the power of Judicial Review the Supreme court found that it was actually unconstitutional to not allow a woman to have an abortion before the point of medical viability.

This Constitutional has been interpreted differently since its founding, because slavery originally was considered constitutional legal. My adversary brings this up as a point saying slavery was always non constitutional, but based on the perception of the leading people of our government and how the constitution was written slavery was actually legal and allowed under the US Constitution at one point. Upon further review and after realizing it was a violating of human rights, it was fixed. The same issue occurred with abortion. This is the power of judicial review an adding laws that best help us as people. Any laws can change or be reviewed depending on the situation, and thus abortion was with Roe Vs Wade. Now in fact it is unconstitutional to deny a women an abortion before the point of medical viability and yes that is a "Law"


Review 2) What is a Law

We have went over these terms throughout the entire debate, but it is essential in the voting process due to what is necessary to negate the resolution.

I will go over this one more time

Law - the whole system or set of rules made by the government of a town, state, country, etc.
Lawful - conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules.
Murder - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Murder is defined as the unlawful act of killing another human being. Abortion is the act of terminating a fetus, and is permitted by the law until the point of medical viability as I have cited over and over. It is even allowed under the US Constitution per judicial review as I stated in my prior round due to violation of medical privacy rights. Therefore it is not murder as this debate defines it. I will set up the syllogism that has stood throughout he entire debate and which has negated Pros BOP and negated the resolution.

P1) Abortion is allowed under law in the United States
P2) Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being
C) Abortion is lawful, therefore it is not murder

That is the entire premise behind this debate, and it effectively negates the resolution.



Review 3 ) Acknowledgments

A) Pro has agreed abortion is legal, and something that is legal is in turn lawful or allowed under the law. Since it is allowed under the law and is permitted by the law, it is not murder per the definitions that are set up.

B) He then admits that not all abortions are murder. However the resolution is abortion is murder. Saying that some murders are not murder is a self contradiction, as he would have to defend that abortion objectively is murder. Now he could say that not all abortions are wrong and be fine, but when he stated that not all of them were murder the debate from that point swings in my favor


Conclusion

As there is not much left to argue, this debate comes down to what is legal. Abortion is legal, therefore it is lawful and murder is the unlawful killing of Hanover human being. Abortion by extension is not murder. That sums up this entire debate. Thanks to those who read and who will vote, and thanks to my adversary for a great debate



Chuz-Life

Pro

As we agreed in the rules (round one) I am passing this round as request. Please extend my previous arguments and thanks to all who give this debate their unbiased objective consideration before voting.
Debate Round No. 5
120 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Chuz-Life 2 years ago
Chuz-Life
""I am surprised that this debate followed through as it did, and also by the poor judging. Coupling your vote for Con with a few short sentences that mainly state that Con's argument is a truism is not an adequate RFD in this debate. I mean no disrespect to the voters, but such statements are ignorant.""

I tried reporting the vote bombs to no avail.
Posted by ZenoCitium 2 years ago
ZenoCitium
I am surprised that this debate followed through as it did, and also by the poor judging. Coupling your vote for Con with a few short sentences that mainly state that Con's argument is a truism is not an adequate RFD in this debate. I mean no disrespect to the voters, but such statements are ignorant.

How can it be a truism, it is not even true for all instances? Con defines abortion as the termination of a pregnancy, OFTEN before 28 weeks. However, neither Con nor Pro delve into the instances in which abortion is illegal. Nearly every state places a legal restriction, by term, on abortion. Almost half limit abortion after only 22 weeks. These restrictions are explicitly allowed by the SCOUS through their ruling in Roe v. Wade.

This seemed to be a trap debate, though it probably should have backfired. Mikal somehow aligned all of the benefits of being the instigator, being Con, and having the final rebuttal. In my opinion, YYW and Bennett91 should probably have recused themselves from voting. They were involved in a very heated discussion before the debate began, in this comments section and in forums. To me it's more of an honorable behavior and obviously not required. Conducting yourself in this manner tends to draw questions about impartiality. It most definitely does not substantiate your position.
Posted by Chuz-Life 2 years ago
Chuz-Life
By legal definition, MURDER is the unlawful killing of one human being by another. "A human being" - even in the zygote, embryo or fetal stage of their life is not less than a human being. So, because their rights and legal protections are being denied by unjust laws which (for now) keep abortions 'legal' - the vast majority of abortions are MURDERS. Unjust laws to deny prenatal children their rights, protections and personhood are not with standing.
Posted by cb123 2 years ago
cb123
So according to con's argument, it is then a possibility that abortion is infact murder, if the abortion happens to be carried out in country where abortion is illegal, in Kenya for example abortion is illegal if abortion is illegal, does con agree that it is then murder or not?
His main argument seems to be based that it cannot be murder because abortion is legal in the USA, also laws change, if a new government was elected who indeed changed the law making it illegal, would it then constitute murder?
This debate can truly only boil down to one factor and that is morality which is inherently subjective.
Marriage for instance of a minor as young as 6 in some countries is legal does it make it any less of a crime morally, morality must come into law in some context.
Posted by Chuz-Life 3 years ago
Chuz-Life
"So if SCOTUS struck down the fetal homicide law as unconstitutional and upheld roe v wade, you'd let them have the last word and accept abortion as legal?"

One, I don't have any worries about that happening. There is much less doubt about when and how a person's life begins now than there was when Roe was being decided. Not to mention the fact that the Federal Government and more than half the States have only been doing that which Justice Potter Stewart indicated would have to be done - to make the case for abortion impossible. Secondly, no one has been denying that abortions are (for now) legal. The debate has been over whether or not it's lawful / Constitutional.

As for letting the SCOTUS have the last word? That's not going to happen and it's not supposed to happen. We (the people) have a (1st Amendment) responsibility and a duty to challenge laws and even Supreme Courts rulings that we disagree with. That's what the 1st Amendment is all about.
Posted by Bennett91 3 years ago
Bennett91
So if SCOTUS struck down the fetal homicide law as unconstitutional and upheld roe v wade, you'd let them have the last word and accept abortion as legal?
Posted by Chuz-Life 3 years ago
Chuz-Life
Ummmm, If the case were 'closed' then why are the criminals convicted of MURDERING 'children in the womb' continuing to challenge their rulings and why are they trying to get their convictions overturned on the basis that the Fetal Homicide Laws conflict with Roe?

You are free to think the case is closed for yourself. It's certainly not "closed" for those who are making these appeals and it's not 'closed' for people like me who are anxious for the Supreme Court to reconcile the language and findings in our Fetal Homicide laws with the language and findings of the Roe v Wade decision.
Posted by Bennett91 3 years ago
Bennett91
Utah one of the most conservative states - "MacGuire was also charged under the state"s aggravated murder statute, which applies a more severe penalty for a crime in which two or more "persons" are killed; the court ruled that this law was also properly applied to an unborn victim and was consistent with the U.S. Constitution. January 23, 2004."
Posted by Bennett91 3 years ago
Bennett91
Now I can see the site, and not a single one of these cases has been mentioned as going to the supreme court. Looks like SCOTUS doesn't think this is a constitutional issue. Missouri "the Supreme Court nullified this ruling, and held that a state is free to enact laws that recognize unborn children, so long as the state does not include restrictions on abortion that Roe forbids. CASE CLOSED.
Posted by Chuz-Life 3 years ago
Chuz-Life
The site is not down for me and maybe you should try not insulting people's intelligence so much. The information you asked about was provided in the debate (round one) and it has been there all along.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
MikalChuz-LifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was a bit unfair on Pro, but he did accept the debate. The key question here is whether, in the status quo, abortion constitutes an unlawful killing in the U.S. Even if the Supreme Court got it wrong (and it didn't), their ruling is still active, valid case law permitting abortions as legal in the U.S. right now. Therefore, abortion does not meet the definition of "murder" set out by Con, and I have to vote Con.
Vote Placed by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
MikalChuz-LifeTied
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: I almost feel bad about voting on this debate, but pro should also have never accepted this. If pro would've trolled, I would've voted pro, because it's sort of a truism, but since this was a serious debate, I have to vote for the serious winner. Abortion is not murder nor unlawful in the US. That's the end of it.
Vote Placed by Bennett91 3 years ago
Bennett91
MikalChuz-LifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: See comments for argument points. Source points for Con because his sources held up his argument, while Pro asserted that the fetal homicide act supported his claim when it didn't.
Vote Placed by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
MikalChuz-LifeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Says CON: Abortion is legal, therefore it is lawful and murder is the unlawful killing of Hanover human being. Abortion by extension is not murder. That sums up this entire debate. Arguments to CON.