The Instigator
Death23
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
blackprtzl
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Abortion is murder

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 2 votes the winner is...
Death23
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 2/9/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 529 times Debate No: 86287
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Death23

Con

Voting ELO 2,000 minimum.

First round, acceptance only.

You troll, you lose.

You flake, you lose.

Last round, rebuttals only. No new arguments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is work associated with scrutinizing sources. The purpose of these rules is to make it easier to scrutinize sources. Violating the rules on sources is sufficient grounds for a loss.
blackprtzl

Pro

I accept the debate of Con, and going to argue for proposition of 'Abortion is murder.'
Debate Round No. 1
Death23

Con


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


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


Oxford Dictionary -


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


American Heritage Dictionary -


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


Collins Dictionary -


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


Merriam-Webster Dictionary -


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


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


Oxford Dictionary -


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


American Heritage Dictionary -


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


Collins Dictionary -


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


Merriam-Webster Dictionary -


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


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


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


blackprtzl

Pro

During the months leading to the Emancipation Proclamation, President Lincoln repeatedly discussed the matter with his cabinet. During one difficult discussion, he asked: "Gentlemen, how many legs does a sheep have?" Each man answered correctly, "Four, Mr. President." He proceeded, "Let's call his tail a leg. Now how many legs?" Each man replied, "Five, Mr. President." Mr. Lincoln retorted, "Nope, still only four. Just because we call it a leg doesn't make it one."

By stating that the argument "abortion is murder" is purely semantic is authentically incorrect. As President Lincoln said - just because we label something as such, it does not mean its label matches the reality.

I would like to draw a definition of "murder" from the online Oxford Dictionary. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)

It goes like this:

'The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another'.

Lets scrutinise this word by word.

'The unlawful' - would be here understood by a reasonable person as an act that by its nature breaches the law.

'Premeditated' - act carried out with an intention to do so. With a purpose and means.

'Killing' - act of taking someone's life.

'Human being' - now this is the term we would spend most time elaborating on. I suggest we start with it straight away.

There is no objective and universally accepted view on where the human life begins. The spectrum of possible beginnings varies from the moment of fertilisation up until the moment of birth. Therefore, it would be a waste of time to inhabit a certain assumption on the beginning of human life, and take it for granted as means to prove that abortion in fact is not a murder.

What I propose to do, is to try a reverse argument. When people enter a vegetative state, or spend a significant amount of time in coma, or in great pain, a lot of families would consider euthanasia - artificial way to end a person's life, which considered by every law to be a murder. Why? Because we do not know at which point a human being seizes to be a human being, until the physical death occures. Therefore, no matter what happens to a person, there cannot be a positive act of killing that person, otherwise it would be classified as murder.

We cannot define the end of human being. How can we define the begining? If we do not know when a human life truly begins, how can we judge and decide for ourselves that moment of initiation? I do understand, that there are a lot of professionals in fields of chemistry and biology, who are certain they got it right. However, the starting point of human life is still just a debate.

Let me give you a simple example.

Imagine that a person got ill with an unknown to modern medicine virus. Doctors then take him to the hospital, and look at the symptoms. Without checking his whole body, they deduce a probable solution and develop a probable cure. However, they ignore the full body check, that would actually allow to locate the virus and give almost a 100% formula of the cure. Is that a rational thing to do?

So. Just as doctors should consider the whole body for a check, we should consider the whole life span of a human life. The same principle applies. If we do not know when a human being becomes a human being, nor that we know when a human being ceases to be human being, we need to treat him as a human begin during its whole biological activity (moment of fertilisation up until the moment of physical death). This needs to be done until the time comes when science will be able to provide a universal definition of human being start.

By choosing the most probable time estimate of when a human life begins endangers potential life, and is simply a random and unprecedented thing to do.

Instead, to be completely secure, we need to treat the whole physical existence of a human life as a human being.

If we adopt this idea oh a human being, then obviously abortion, no matter at what stage, would be a murder.

The reason for that, is because murder is prohibited in every single jurisdictional law of established statehoods (countries). Therefore abortion would be an unlawful killing of one human being by another, on purpose or with intention.

I therefore maintain the resolution, and argue further that abortion is murder.
Debate Round No. 2
Death23

Con

Re:

" During the months leading to the Emancipation Proclamation, President Lincoln repeatedly discussed the matter with his cabinet. During one difficult discussion, he asked: "Gentlemen, how many legs does a sheep have?" Each man answered correctly, "Four, Mr. President." He proceeded, "Let's call his tail a leg. Now how many legs?" Each man replied, "Five, Mr. President." Mr. Lincoln retorted, "Nope, still only four. Just because we call it a leg doesn't make it one." "

First, this alleged quote from Lincoln is likely bogus. This alleged quote has been showing up on various anti-abortion websites dating back to 2001. (see, e.g., Google search results for the quote - https://goo.gl... --- and first appearance >>> https://goo.gl... ) I haven't seen any credible evidence indicating that the quote is authentic. I challenge Pro to demonstrate that the quote is authentic.

Second, Pro has failed to cite his source. Pro merely copy/pasted the entire paragraph from some source and failed to properly attribute the source of the work - Pro didn't even try. This is a form of plagiarism, and it isn't acceptable conduct.

Turning to Pro's other arguments, I do not understand why Pro has felt that it is necessary to discuss the issue of whether or not a fetus is a human being for purposes of murder. This wasn't disputed by me in the prior round as my case was built on the fact that abortion is lawful as rather than a claim that fetuses are not human. So, this entire discussion by Pro is superfluous as far as I'm concerned. Fetuses are human beings for purposes of murder. I agree with Pro on that point. I also do not understand the relevance of Pro's example of euthanasia. This debate is not about euthanasia. This debate is about abortion. I encourage Pro to stay on topic.

Critically, Pro has presented no response to my point about abortion being lawful. Pro has accepted that abortion is lawful, and has accepted the Oxford Dictionary definition for murder which explicitly includes the descriptor "unlawful". Pro has presented no explanation as to how lawful abortion could be murder under a definition which requires an unlawful killing. Pro has dropped this argument entirely.
blackprtzl

Pro

blackprtzl forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Death23

Con

This debate is over. My opponent has lost this debate pursuant to the following rule from round 1:

"You flake, you lose."

http://www.urbandictionary.com...
blackprtzl

Pro

blackprtzl forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Death23 9 months ago
Death23
During the months leading to the Emancipation Proclamation, President Lincoln repeatedly discussed the matter with his cabinet. During one difficult discussion, he asked: "Gentlemen, how many legs does a sheep have?" Each man answered correctly, "Four, Mr. President." He proceeded, "Let's call his tail a leg. Now how many legs?" Each man replied, "Five, Mr. President." Mr. Lincoln retorted, "Nope, still only four. Just because we call it a leg doesn't make it one."

Why didn't you cite a source?

http://www.baptistpillar.com...
Posted by RottingCreepers 9 months ago
RottingCreepers
I'm interested to see where this goes.
Posted by Death23 9 months ago
Death23
That would be fine.
Posted by blackprtzl 9 months ago
blackprtzl
So do I simply say that I accepted the debate in the first round?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 9 months ago
U.n
Death23blackprtzl
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Per rules: "You flake, you lose." Pro forfeited two rounds, therefore voting Con.
Vote Placed by Valkrin 9 months ago
Valkrin
Death23blackprtzl
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by Pro. According to the rules Con wins.