The Instigator
a_janis1
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
TBR
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points

Abortion

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 3 votes the winner is...
a_janis1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/21/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,016 times Debate No: 72125
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (37)
Votes (3)

 

a_janis1

Con

I consider abortion to be one of the most important issues facing our world today. The reason being is because abortion either is the legalized killing of innocent human beings or abortion is not the killing of a human being. There is no in-between. I will stand against abortion in every case with one exception. That one exception is when the mother is guaranteed to die during child birth or if both the fetus and the mother will die during child birth.

I argue that abortion is the killing of an innocent human being, the right to life is an inalienable right given to every innocent human being, therefore, abortion, as the direct result of the killing of an innocent human child, violates the inalienable right to life. Thus, abortion is wrong.

There are no restrictions to this debate. There is no formal layout other than that my opponent should provide a retort to my main argument in the first round. Feel free to debate however you so choose as long as it remains respectful and courteous.
TBR

Pro

Body autonomy!

Yup, that is all.
Debate Round No. 1
a_janis1

Con

What would you define "body autonomy" in relation to abortion as being? I have seen a wide variety of perspectives on the word "autonomy."
TBR

Pro

I will make it super easy for you, as I really thought you wouldn’t return, and just forfeit. I am saying the body autonomy includes the right to kill an interloper within my body.

Yup, person, human, anything. If it (he/she person/human) is unwelcome within my body, I have the right to kill it! If I were in Flordia or Texas, many would hold rallys for me killing the trespasser in my body.

Right back to you.

Debate Round No. 2
a_janis1

Con

Well I am not going to forfeit any rounds. I don't know why you would think that I would not respond when the whole point of debate.com is to debate... Debating doesn't mean forfeiting a bunch of rounds. Rather, it is an intellectual, two way discussion. But that is neither here nor there...

Anyway, since you have done nothing to refute that the fetus is a living human being, then my claims stand firm. In fact, in order for you to say an interloper could be a "person or human" inside a woman you must inherently mean a fetus is a person or a human. That is the only circumstance where a person could act as an interloper in another person's body. So I do not think the issue then is whether or not the fetus is a human being (since by deduction you would have to agree the fetus is), rather, the issue is whether the fetus has a right to remain in the woman or not.

Ok, so here is where your argument that the fetus can be killed for "trespassing" falls apart. Let us say you are being robbed. The robber is 30 years old. However, he is holding his year old child. Certainly you have the right to defend yourself against the 30 year old robber for trespassing. In some states you have the right to defend your ground by even shooting and killing him. However, do you have the right to kill the innocent, year old child in the robbers hands? The baby technically is trespassing. BY your argument, it would justifiable to kill the baby as well. However, since the child is entirely innocent, you cannot kill the child even under the circumstance that the child is trespassing. The same argument then applies for the fetus. The fetus is entirely innocent and therefore cannot be killed for what you call "trespassing." And if you would be willing to say that the death of the fetus is warranted for trespassing, then you also have to admit the one year old's death could be warranted just for trespassing.

Now let us examine whether the chid in a womb even is trespassing. The only circumstance where I could remotely see this argument applying is under the circumstance of rape. However, since the child is still entirely innocent, the child cannot be killed. However, by committing an act of consensual sex, the person is saying they are open to reproduction (since thats what sex is.) and therefore must be open to the conception of a child. People always claim that just by having sex does not mean you are also consenting to pregnancy. That is a terribly false argument. Look at any condom package. No condom will guarantee 100% protection because no sex is entirely "safe." Birth control doesn't even work 100% of the time. By engaging in any consensual sex, there will always be the chance a child could be conceived. Someone who says "just because i had sex does not mean I also consented to the pregnancy." is forfeiting their responsibility. That is exactly like saying "just because I gambled does not mean I consented to losing all my money." Or "Just because I consented to driving over the speed limit does not mean I consented to the ticket I received." There is a clear lack of responsibility for personal actions when someone says they weren't consenting that the woman could become pregnant. And because any act of consensual sex is inherently then consenting to the conception of a child, (whether the people like it or not). Therefore the child was given consent to be in the womb.

In fact, isn't the usage of a condom or birth control in itself revealing that there is an acceptance that the woman might become pregnant? If the point of a condom is to prevent pregnancy, then the person must know the sex leads to a pregnancy since they are trying to stop that. And since no condom is 100% guaranteed, then the person is consenting to even the 1% chance a child would be conceived. Therefore, the act of conception itself is consensual and the fetus is not trespassing.

You never have the right to kill an innocent human being. And since the fetus is a human being who is innocent, then you cannot kill the fetus on the grounds that it is "unwelcome."
TBR

Pro

Anyway, since you have done nothing to refute that the fetus is a living human being, then my claims stand firm.

Yup. A fetus is a living human being. I did not refute it because I have no argument with your point.

In fact, in order for you to say an interloper could be a "person or human" inside a woman you must inherently mean a fetus is a person or a human.

How many times will I have to say this, it is HUMAN!

That is the only circumstance where a person could act as an interloper in another person's body. So I do not think the issue then is whether or not the fetus is a human being (since by deduction you would have to agree the fetus is), rather, the issue is whether the fetus has a right to remain in the woman or not.

Now you are getting it.



Ok, so here is where your argument that the fetus can be killed for "trespassing" falls apart. Let us say you are being robbed. The robber is 30 years old. However, he is holding his year old child. Certainly you have the right to defend yourself against the 30 year old robber for trespassing. In some states you have the right to defend your ground by even shooting and killing him. However, do you have the right to kill the innocent, year old child in the robbers hands? The baby technically is trespassing. BY your argument, it would justifiable to kill the baby as well.

If the child refuses my demand to leave my body, I have a right to kill it.

However, since the child is entirely innocent, you cannot kill the child even under the circumstance that the child is trespassing.

The child is in violation of my wishes to leave my body.

The same argument then applies for the fetus. The fetus is entirely innocent and therefore cannot be killed for what you call "trespassing." And if you would be willing to say that the death of the fetus is warranted for trespassing, then you also have to admit the one year old's death could be warranted just for trespassing.

See above.



Now let us examine whether the chid in a womb even is trespassing. The only circumstance where I could remotely see this argument applying is under the circumstance of rape. However, since the child is still entirely innocent, the child cannot be killed. However, by committing an act of consensual sex, (not always) the person is saying they are open to reproduction (since thats what sex is.) and therefore must be open to the conception of a child.

Not at all. Sex is not only for reproduction. Provide anything to back that.

People always claim that just by having sex does not mean you are also consenting to pregnancy. That is a terribly false argument. Look at any condom package. No condom will guarantee 100% protection because no sex is entirely "safe." Birth control doesn't even work 100% of the time. By engaging in any consensual sex, there will always be the chance a child could be conceived.

Good thing abortion is legal.

Someone who says "just because i had sex does not mean I also consented to the pregnancy." is forfeiting their responsibility. That is exactly like saying "just because I gambled does not mean I consented to losing all my money." Or "Just because I consented to driving over the speed limit does not mean I consented to the ticket I received." There is a clear lack of responsibility for personal actions when someone says they weren't consenting that the woman could become pregnant. And because any act of consensual sex is inherently then consenting to the conception of a child, (whether the people like it or not). Therefore the child was given consent to be in the womb.

Conjecture



In fact, isn't the usage of a condom or birth control in itself revealing that there is an acceptance that the woman might become pregnant? If the point of a condom is to prevent pregnancy, then the person must know the sex leads to a pregnancy since they are trying to stop that. And since no condom is 100% guaranteed, then the person is consenting to even the 1% chance a child would be conceived. Therefore, the act of conception itself is consensual and the fetus is not trespassing.

Conjecture

You never have the right to kill an innocent human being. And since the fetus is a human being who is innocent, then you cannot kill the fetus on the grounds that it is "unwelcome."

It will not leave my body voluntarily. It is violating my right to determine the use of my own body.

Debate Round No. 3
a_janis1

Con

Ok well good. So now it has been explicitly stated by myself and my opponent that the fetus is a living human being. Keep this in mind.

You really have failed to refute anything I have said. You make statements such as "If the child refuses to leave my body, I have a right to kill it," without supporting your claims in any way. Your sentences do not explain anything. Rather, they state insubstantial claims. So now, since you have not supported your own sentences, I will refute them.

"If the child refuses to leave my body, I have a right to kill it.." Where does anything suggest that you have the right to kill an innocent human being, who is not yet conscious, just for the location where they live? The body is as much as a physical location as a house. Obviously there are differences, but living in a house or living inside a body can be equated in the grounds that they are both physical locations. You wouldn't kill a year old child who wanders into your room if they refuse to leave. You wouldn't kill an unconscious adult for refusing to leave your house because they have no culpability for their actions. Both would be murder. Where you live does not determine whether you live. The fetus (a living human being) has no culpability and therefore is innocent. Because the child is innocent, and where you live does not determine whether you live, then the child has the right to life. Most importantly, if you agree there are certain rights to your own body then you must agree on other rights, chiefly the right to life. Since the right to life is the right from which all other rights stem, then you have to protect the right to life in this situation. Because the right to life trumps the right to control your own body, and because there are two separate individuals involved in abortion, and both have the ultimate right to life, then the child cannot be killed. Are you really ok with eliminating the chief right from which all other rights stem aka the right to life?

Since every single human being has the right to life, and you admit the fetus is a human being, then you cannot justify killing the innocent human being inside the mother. Whether you like it or not, if you support the right to life, then you inherently have to be opposed to abortion.

"The Child is in violation of the wishes to leave my body"
Refer to above arguments.

"Not at all. Sex is not only for reproduction. Provide anything to back that."

First of all, I never said sex was ONLY for reproduction. I said all consensual sex inherently consents to reproduction. That is not the same thing as saying sex is only for reproduction. In fact, sex also brings the couple closer together by usage of hormones. Sex bonds the people consenting to it. But this is not the point. I am saying that if you have consensual sex, you are open to reproduction. Sexual intercourse is the act by which two beings of the opposite sex reproduce. Therefore, since sex is the means by which reproduction occurs, sexual intercourse will always mean that reproduction is possible. And because sex leads to reproduction, then by consenting to sex, you consent to the reproduction. Since those who participate in sexual intercourse are aware of the possibility of becoming pregnant, and they still consent to sex, then they are consenting to the sex which inherently, as part of its essence, possesses to possibility for pregnancy. They are consenting to the possibilities of reproducing aka conceiving a child.

"Good thing abortion is legal." So its a good thing to run away from our responsibilities by killing children? That child has every right to life that you and I have. Killing the fetus is equal to killing you or me since the fetus, you ,and I are human beings and all human beings are created equal. So it is a terrible thing that it is legal to brutally kill innocent babies who cannot defend themselves.

"Conjecture"
These arguments support the statements that sex consents to conception. You cannot run away from a responsibility to protect that child's life any more than a gambler can run away from his debt. People need to protect that inalienable right to life, not remove it.

"It will not leave my body voluntarily. It is violating my right to determine the use of my body."

How can you justifiably condemn a human being to death who had no choice to be in your body? How can you justifiably condemn an innocent human baby to death who cannot voluntarily make any conscious choices? How can you justifiably condemn an innocent human child to death for the actions of his or her parents in having sex? You would be condemning an innocent child to death for the actions of his or her parents. That is wrong. I will say this again:

If you support the right to "determine the use of my own body" then you are defending human rights. And if you defend human rights, then you must defend the principle human right from which all other human rights stem: The Right to Life. Since you must defend the Right to Life, and since you would support all human beings are created equal, then you would have to defend that all human beings have equal human rights such as the right to life. And because you openly admit a fetus is a living human being, then you have to support the child's inalienable right to life. Thus, abortion is wrong. Boom.

Never forget: "The right to swing my fist ends where another man's nose begins"- Oliver Wendell Holmes

`
TBR

Pro

Con is concerned that I have not refuted his points. While I have already, I also have no issue doing again, as there is little past my initial positive statement that needs to be made.

"If the child refuses to leave my body, I have a right to kill it.." Where does anything suggest that you have the right to kill an innocent human being, who is not yet conscious, just for the location where they live?

The right is within my right to control my own body. Within the US, the right of privacy: personal autonomy are within the constitution due process clause of the 14th Amendment and may include as parts of the right of privacy under the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments [1]. The decision that most closely recognizes this right provided by the 14th amendment is Row vs. Wade. So, to make it CRYSTAL clear. The US constitution is what suggest that I have this right.

The body is as much as a physical location as a house. Obviously there are differences, but living in a house or living inside a body can be equated in the grounds that they are both physical locations.

OK, so what?

You wouldn't kill a year old child who wanders into your room if they refuse to leave. You wouldn't kill an unconscious adult for refusing to leave your house because they have no culpability for their actions. Both would be murder.

Con simply wanders past the point over and over. If the child “wanders” INSIDE MY BODY, using my organs, refusing to leave. I have the right to expel it with any means necessary to insure MY right to body autonomy.

Where you live does not determine whether you live.

Sure it does. You have been attempting to bring in other analogs, but none are necessary. If a fetus/human/person/child is living within my body, using my organs, without my consent, it is my right to kill it.

The fetus (a living human being) has no culpability and therefore is innocent. Because the child is innocent, and where you live does not determine whether you live, then the child has the right to life. Most importantly, if you agree there are certain rights to your own body then you must agree on other rights, chiefly the right to life.

The right of the fetus/human/person/child do not negate MY right to my own body. If the fetus/human/person/child vacates on my command, or without the necessity of killing it, fine.

Since the right to life is the right from which all other rights stem, then you have to protect the right to life in this situation. Because the right to life trumps the right to control your own body, and because there are two separate individuals involved in abortion, and both have the ultimate right to life, then the child cannot be killed. Are you really ok with eliminating the chief right from which all other rights stem aka the right to life?

See above.

Since every single human being has the right to life, and you admit the fetus is a human being, then you cannot justify killing the innocent human being inside the mother. Whether you like it or not, if you support the right to life, then you inherently have to be opposed to abortion.

See above.

"The Child is in violation of the wishes to leave my body"
Refer to above arguments.

OK I have.

"Not at all. Sex is not only for reproduction. Provide anything to back that."

First of all, I never said sex was ONLY for reproduction. I said all consensual sex inherently consents to reproduction. That is not the same thing as saying sex is only for reproduction. In fact, sex also brings the couple closer together by usage of hormones. Sex bonds the people consenting to it. But this is not the point. I am saying that if you have consensual sex, you are open to reproduction. Sexual intercourse is the act by which two beings of the opposite (not always true) sex reproduce. Therefore, since sex is the means by which reproduction occurs, sexual intercourse will always mean that reproduction is possible. And because sex leads to reproduction, then by consenting to sex, you consent to the reproduction. Since those who participate in sexual intercourse are aware of the possibility of becoming pregnant, and they still consent to sex, then they are consenting to the sex which inherently, as part of its essence, possesses to possibility for pregnancy. They are consenting to the possibilities of reproducing aka conceiving a child.

Consent is NOT given. You have this wish for tacit consent the does not exist.

Noun 1. permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.

"no change may be made without the consent of all the partners"


"Good thing abortion is legal." So its a good thing to run away from our responsibilities by killing children?

It’s a good thing that the government can’t force me to use my body against my will.

That child has every right to life that you and I have. Killing the fetus is equal to killing you or me since the fetus, you ,and I are human beings and all human beings are created equal. So it is a terrible thing that it is legal to brutally kill innocent babies who cannot defend themselves.

Humans that are not violating my right to control my body are none of my concern. Those that are, I have a complete right over.


"Conjecture"
These arguments support the statements that sex consents to conception. You cannot run away from a responsibility to protect that child's life any more than a gambler can run away from his debt. People need to protect that inalienable right to life, not remove it.

I have a responsibility to control my own body. One of the responsibilities is control what can and can’t use it for its own selfish reasons.

"It will not leave my body voluntarily. It is violating my right to determine the use of my body."

How can you justifiably condemn a human being to death who had no choice to be in your body? How can you justifiably condemn an innocent human baby to death who cannot voluntarily make any conscious choices? How can you justifiably condemn an innocent human child to death for the actions of his or her parents in having sex? You would be condemning an innocent child to death for the actions of his or her parents. That is wrong. I will say this again:

OK. You think it’s wrong. We knew that going in.


[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu...

Debate Round No. 4
a_janis1

Con

I will start off by quoting exactly what I stated last time that was not refuted by you:

"If you support the right to "determine the use of my own body" then you are defending human rights. And if you defend human rights, then you must defend the principle human right from which all other human rights stem: The Right to Life. Since you must defend the Right to Life, and since you would support all human beings are created equal, then you would have to defend that all human beings have equal human rights such as the right to life. And because you openly admit a fetus is a living human being, then you have to support the child's inalienable right to life. Thus, abortion is wrong. Boom.

Never forget: "The right to swing my fist ends where another man's nose begins"- Oliver Wendell Holmes"

Now I will address all parts of your refutations by providing your direct quotes and then replying:

1. a.) Now you state that "The right is within my right to control my own body. Within the US, the right of privacy: personal autonomy are within the constitution due process clause of the 14th Amendment and may include as parts of the right of privacy under the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments [1]. The decision that most closely recognizes this right provided by the 14th amendment is Row vs. Wade. So, to make it CRYSTAL clear. The US constitution is what suggest that I have this right."

1. b) Yeah you can control your own body until it infringes upon the right of someone else. Thats like saying well I control my own body however I like, so I can justifiably punch someone in the face without repercussion because I have the right to control my body however I so choose. YOUR RIGHTS DO NOT EXTEND TO INFRINGE UPON THE RIGHTS OF ANYONE ELSE. And because you admit the fetus is a human being, and every human being has rights, the fetus has rights. Therefore YOU CANT INFRINGE UPON THE RIGHTS OF THE FETUS. Also, the fetus is its own unique body. So if you really supported to right to "control my own body" why don't you support the right for the fetus to protect his or body?? So what if the fetus is inside you because the fetus still has inalienable rights.

1. c) Now lets look at the declaration of Independence that states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" Clearly the Declaration of Independence declares that all human beings have the inalienable right to life. Once again, since you said the fetus is a human being, then the fetus has the inalienable right to life.

2. a) "Con simply wanders past the point over and over. If the child "wanders" INSIDE MY BODY, using my organs, refusing to leave. I have the right to expel it with any means necessary to insure MY right to body autonomy."

2. b) Bodily autonomy does not negate the right to life of another human being. Besides, why aren't you arguing for the rights of the body of the fetus since you admit both the mother and fetus are human beings? You're not being fair by only supporting the bodily autonomy of the mother. Why aren't you supporting the bodily autonomy of every human being since the fetus, as you admit, is a human being? More importantly, why aren't you supporting the right to life of the human being inside the mother which supersedes the right to "control your body."?

3. a) "Sure it does. You have been attempting to bring in other analogs, but none are necessary. If a fetus/human/person/child is living within my body, using my organs, without my consent, it is my right to kill it."

3. b) Well considering the innocent human being inside of you has the inalienable right to life, you are wrong in saying you have the right to "kill it."

4. a) "The right of the fetus/human/person/child do not negate MY right to my own body. If the fetus/human/person/child vacates on my command, or without the necessity of killing it, fine."

4. b) In fact you are wrong. Actually, the right to "your body" doesn't negate the right to life of the human being of the fetus. The right to life is the fundamental right of existence, therefore, because it is the foundation that the "right to your own body" exists upon, the right to life supersedes the right to control your own body.

5. a) "Consent is NOT given. You have this wish for tacit consent the does not exist.

Noun 1. permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.

"no change may be made without the consent of all the partners""

5. b) Actually it is consented to. The partners agree to do the sex. Sex is the act of reproducing. If you agree to the act of reproducing, you agree to the reproduction. Hence, pregnancy (reproduction) is consented to.

6. a) "It"s a good thing that the government can"t force me to use my body against my will."

6. b) What if you will your body, (specifically your fist) to land a punch on another mans face. Is it legal for you to punch someone in the face at the bar? No. It is illegal. The government does control how you use your body when the usage of your body infringes upon the rights of someone else. So this goes back to what I said before: The right to control your body does not extend to infringe upon the right to life of the human being inside the woman.

7. a) "Humans that are not violating my right to control my body are none of my concern. Those that are, I have a complete right over."

7. b) Humans that you have complete control right... Complete right? No one has complete right over any other human being. That is the fallacy that justified slavery. The human being inside her will always have the inalienable right to life. Furthermore, human beings should be your concern. You should protect those without a voice.

8. a) "I have a responsibility to control my own body. One of the responsibilities is control what can and can"t use it for its own selfish reasons."

8. b) You can control your own body until it infringes upon the rights of another human being. The fetus is a unique human being, as you said, and therefore, has its own body. The fetus has the equal right to life as the mother does.
TBR

Pro

Let me start our concluding round with some points about this debate, my opposition a_janis1, and an off topic remark I made in round two. A__janis1, it is very common for debaters with little history (and no profile picture ;) ) to abandon debates (especially debates with such broad resolutions). It, my remark, was honest, I didn’t expect you to complete the debate – I was wrong. I thank you for the debate, and look forward to more interaction with you.

Since no rules were stated for the debate, and con has used his final round for rebuttals, I will not take advantage of the last round for counter rebuttals to be fair. I will rebut the one point that con believes I have not given enough attention to.

"If you support the right to "determine the use of my own body" then you are defending human rights. And if you defend human rights, then you must defend the principle human right from which all other human rights stem: The Right to Life. Since you must defend the Right to Life, and since you would support all human beings are created equal, then you would have to defend that all human beings have equal human rights such as the right to life. And because you openly admit a fetus is a living human being, then you have to support the child's inalienable right to life. Thus, abortion is wrong. Boom.

I am under no obligation to support what you tell me to support.

This concept of body autonomy is simple to understand, and tough to accept. The abortion debate runs on emotion, and I purposely avoided the emotional aspects for the sake of this debate. Con nearly did the impossible, run through a complete abortion debate without saying “murder". Accepting that a fetus/human/person/child can be killed for the potentially selfish motives of another is tough to come to grips with. The facts, harsh as it may sound is, all humans have the right to control their own body. If another being is using a part of your body, you have no obligation to permit it. The government cannot force you to use your own body against your will. The constitution of the United States agrees, the SCOTUS agrees, and consistently better than 50% of the population agrees with this.



Debate Round No. 5
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
If I were to vote, I would vote this way:

Conduct: Tie. I thought both parties conduct was fine.

S and G: Tie. Although Pro once misspelled "Roe" as "Row", I didn't
think it was egregious enough to warrant a point for Con.

Sources: Since Pro was the only one who used sources, and it was from an institute of higher learning, Pro gets two points.

Arguments: Go to Con for several reasons. First, Pro did not respond to several of Con's arguments. Here is a list of arguments dropped by Pro: 1. Body autonomy is not universal, 2. The criminalization of slavery negates Pro's claims that some humans have "complete" control over other humans.

Even the times when Pro does attempt to refute one of Con's arguments, oftentimes it's only a one or two word response. Twice Pro's only response was "conjecture". This would be fine if he/she defended why it should be considered conjecture, but this was not done. The same goes for Pro's "Ok, so what?" argument.

Pro's argument that we have the right to kill a trespassing person was just silly. As Con pointed out, there's no law that gives us that universal right. Con also did a good job explaining why a baby is not a trespasses since it was placed in its location by the mother (at least accidentally).

Pro's argument that the baby should be killed if it doesn't comply with an eviction notice was nonsensical considering Pro's acceptance that the fetus is not fully conscious.

Pro only had one argument that was semi-compelling: The reference that claimed Roe vs Wade supported bodily autonomy. The only problem was that Pro never quoted the case supporting such a claim. We all know Roe supports the right to abortion, but the question is does it support bodily autonomy universally. A quote from the Roe case making such a statement may have swayed my vote the other way. Absent that, my vote for arguments goes to Con.
Posted by Mathgeekjoe 1 year ago
Mathgeekjoe
Highly off topic question. What is your opinion on cyborg cockroaches?
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Mathgeekjoe 1 year ago
Mathgeekjoe
There is a slight difference between legal definitions of words and their non-legal definitions. Being legally dead is different from actually being dead. Pro-lifers aren't the only one to not use the legal definition of murder. In the fergerson shooting protesters said it was murder, but if the homicide wasn't charge as being illegal then it by definition isn't legal murder.

I also feel you fail to know that there are other definitions of murder.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Go to verb, definition 3.
To put an end to; destroy
This is a very wide definition of murder, like if I destroy a chair or end a plant, I murdered it. Neither the less it does meet a definition of murder and so does the ending of a fetus.
Posted by TBR 1 year ago
TBR
Mathgeekjoe, you did not use these terms. The debater did, and almost every other pro-life person does.

Murder is unlawful killing. Every definition you find will include that distinction. If abortion is legal, it is not murder. The word is used to play on sympathies. Get it?

"It wouldn't include forceps tearing it apart or saline solutions drowning it." - Why even describe this? want me to explain what an episiotomy is? What would the purpose be?
Posted by Mathgeekjoe 1 year ago
Mathgeekjoe
Last time I checked I have not used the word personhood or murder in this comment section. Well now that you would like to bring it up definition of murder:
3. To put an end to; destroy.
Now I have to admit it is a vague and overused definition of it, but neither the less a definition.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

D & E treatment uses forceps or other instruments to remove the fetus. How am I trying to elicit emotion by describing it.
"The fetus and placenta are extracted, using forceps or other instruments."
https://www.michigan.gov...
Posted by TBR 1 year ago
TBR
D & E are preformed in many cases in second term abortions, not just "late term" would apply to. Regardless, as I have said, it does little to change the argument. It is a medical procedure, the details are immaterial to the argument, except to elicit emotion.

Look. As I have said on another poll question I think you were on. I have been present for several procedures. It is not particularly gruesome. It is a common tact for pro-life to describe the procedure in ways that... well, sentimentalize a otherwise very normal procedure.

I have no patience for the endless bickering over "personhood" misuse of "murder" or any other pleas to emotion within this debate. It goes nowhere.
Posted by Mathgeekjoe 1 year ago
Mathgeekjoe
If you want the official names of late term abortions.
D & C (Dilation and Curettage)
D & E (Dilation and Evacuation)
Saline solution

You apparently find me describing how these procedures work to be nothing but words to elicit emotion. So how would you want them to be described?
Posted by Mathgeekjoe 1 year ago
Mathgeekjoe
Physically when you unplug life support, you don't physically change the body. I don't see how that fact is emotional.
Posted by TBR 1 year ago
TBR
You are saying that "late term abortion is different". Is is a different procedure, but aside from emotion, you have offered nothing that fundamentally changes the discussion. So far, you offer nothing but words that elicit emotion about what a late term abortion is. That's all.
Posted by Mathgeekjoe 1 year ago
Mathgeekjoe
If you expect me to believe my argument is about emotion and sentimentality, you are going to need to explain to me how it is, because quite frankly I don't see it.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
a_janis1TBRTied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Rfd in comments.
Vote Placed by DrewMcD 1 year ago
DrewMcD
a_janis1TBRTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with con on his points. I am also voting for him conduct as pro didn't have very intellectual responses in his first Ana second round and seemed as if he wasn't really invested in his argument or trying to make a point.
Vote Placed by YoshiBoy13 1 year ago
YoshiBoy13
a_janis1TBRTied
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: Pretty even debate, Arguments to Con: Pro failed to explain what would happen to the human rights of the foetus.