The Instigator
Chuz-Life
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
ishallannoyyo
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Resolved: Legalized Abortion is the Greatest Crime against Humanity in the History of Mankind

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 5 votes the winner is...
ishallannoyyo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,841 times Debate No: 28759
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (150)
Votes (5)

 

Chuz-Life

Pro

I have made this debate nearly impossible to accept. If you are interested, please explain why you would like to accept this challenge in the comments section.


Resolved: Legalized Elective Abortion [A] is the Greatest Crime against Humanity in the History of Mankind


The "ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT" defines 'crimes against humanity' as;

1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(a) Murder;

(b) Extermination;

(c) Enslavement;

(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

(f) Torture;

(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;

(j) The crime of apartheid;

(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.


The Rome Statute Explanatory Memorandum states that crimes against humanity are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. However, murder, extermination, torture, rape, political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of meriting the stigma attaching to the category of crimes under discussion. On the other hand, an individual may be guilty of crimes against humanity even if he perpetrates one or two of the offences mentioned above, or engages in one such offense against only a few civilians, provided those offenses are part of a consistent pattern of misbehavior by a number of persons linked to that offender (for example, because they engage in armed action on the same side or because they are parties to a common plan or for any similar reason.) Consequently when one or more individuals are not accused of planning or carrying out a policy of inhumanity, but simply of perpetrating specific atrocities or vicious acts, in order to determine whether the necessary threshold is met one should use the following test: one ought to look at these atrocities or acts in their context and verify whether they may be regarded as part of an overall policy or a consistent pattern of an inhumanity, or whether they instead constitute isolated or sporadic acts of cruelty and wickedness."

In this debate, I (Chuz Life) will take the affirmative position of "Pro" and argue that Legalized Abortion on Demand has been (for about 40 Years now) the greatest 'Crime Against Humanity' [1] in the history of mankind.

Con will of course argue to the contrary so the burden of proof is disproportionately on Pro. Con will be expected to argue that other crimes against humanity are greater than abortion and (or) that legalized abortion on demand is no crime against humanity at all.

Rules:

1. The first round is for acceptance
2. Please. No Forfeits
3. No new arguments in the final round


Debate Structure:

Round 1: Acceptance and opening remarks
Round 2: Presenting arguments
Round 3 & 4: Refutation of opponent's arguments
Round 5: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)

Definitions:

[A] Elective Abortion: elective abortion is an induced abortion done at the request of the mother for other than therapeutic reasons [2].

[B] For the purposes of this debate, a "Crime Against Humanity" is defined as quoted (above) from the "ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT" [1]


Sources:

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

[2] http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

ishallannoyyo

Con

I thank Chuz for instigating this debate. The majority of the terms have been defined, however, a key term still remains without a definition and that term is "greatest." Obviously, this is very important for this debate. As this term has been undefined, I will take the liberty of defining it. My definition will be used throughout this debate.

Greatest - for the purposes of this debate, I will define "greatest" as the crime that mainly deserves more attention

I will be arguing that everything during or part of genocide has always been the greatest crime agaist humanity and the crime of genocide should be given more attention than abortion.

Throughout this debate, I will be showing why the issue of abortion truly isn't an issue nor is it murder and thus why it isn't a crime against humanity while providing my own arguments on why genocide is much worse.

I look forward to my opponent's arguments!
Debate Round No. 1
Chuz-Life

Pro

My thanks to Con for accepting the challenge of this debate. I appreciate your efforts to define what I intended by the word "greatest" in my claim that "Legalized Abortion is the Greatest Crime against Humanity in the History of Mankind." I intended the word only to mean "biggest." I did not originally intend for it to mean as you have described in round 1. However, I am fine with using your clarification for the purpose of our exchange.

Legalized abortion being the greatest crime against humanity would logically 'deserve more attention' than any other crime against humanity. That said, Pro does not agree that it is a matter of ‘what crimes call for more attention than others’ in the real world outside of this debate. All crimes against humanity should be dealt with equally, swiftly and as efficiently as possible by the proper authorities.

As I mentioned in round one (R-1) of this debate, I (Pro) do not come to this debate with full confidence that I will actually win. I understand that I have a disproportionate that I have a disproportionate burden of proof in this argument and I only ask Con and the readers who follow along to give fair consideration to information presented. I would not have issued this challenge if I did not absolutely believe legalized abortion to be as serious of a crime as I have previously stated.

Con has committed towards an argument that genocide has always been the greatest crime against humanity and to showing why (legalized voluntary) abortion is a neither murder nor an issue and that's why it can not be (in his opinion) a 'crime against humanity.'

Would that Con would consider the fact that voluntary abortions are themselves a form of genocide.

The Rome Statute of the International Court [1] defines 'genocide' this way;

Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national [4], ethnical [3], racial or religious group, as such: (emphasis is mine)

a. Killing members of the group;
b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.




I ask Con and our readers the following;

1. Do prenatal human children not comprise an ethnic and or national 'group' of human beings [3][4]?

2. Are prenatal human beings not deliberately killed when they are aborted?
3. Are voluntary abortions not intended to 'prevent the births' of the children aborted?



I also would like to ask Con if he agrees that the denial of the status of equal 'personhood' to a human being or to a group of human beings would also be a crime against humanity?

For example, when slavery was deemed to be Constitutional (Dred Scott - United States) by ruling that ‘negro persons’ were a lower class of ‘persons’ than whites. Does Con agree that- that was a crime against humanity [5]?

I have several other points and additional arguments that I will share as the debate unfolds. Hopefully, Con will address these questions in such a way that I can elaborate on the points raised even further.


Sources:

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

[2] http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com......

[3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

[4] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

[5] https://supreme.justia.com...
ishallannoyyo

Con

I thank my opponent for his comments. As this round is for arguments, I will present my arguments though all the questions my opponent has asked me I will answer.

1. Do prenatal human children not comprise an ethnic or national “group” of human beings[3][4]?

No, prenatal human children do not comprise an ethnic or national group because they are not human beings because of the lack of a conscious brain as I will explain later on.

2. Are prenatal human beings not deliberately killed when they are aborted?

No as I will explain in my constructive.

3. Are voluntary abortions not intended to “prevent births” of the children aborted?

Yes, abortions are meant to prevent births, but this is completely different from what my opponent has underlined in the definition of genocide. The key word here is VOLUNTARY, meaning that the mother requested the abortion. No measures are IMPOSED to prevent birth. The definition of imposed is “to lay or set as something to be borne, endured, obeyed, fulfilled, paid, etc [3]. The mother is not forced to abort can still give birth if she chooses. This is in no way the same as forced abortions.

I also would like to ask Con if he agrees that the denial of the status of equal “personhood” to a human being or to a group of human beings would be a crime against humanity.

Yes, I would consider it to be a crime against humanity. However, my opponent cannot say that denying “personhood” to a “human being” is the same as denying “personhood” to a “non-conscious clump of cells that are part of the mother.” Thus, denying personhood to a baby is completely different from denying personhood to a grown man.


Before I move on to my constructive arguments, I would first like to show voters why abortion is not murder.

Abortions most commonly occur in the first trimester, with 88 – 92% of abortions occurring in that time period [1]. Abortions are very rare after 12 weeks. During the first trimester (around 12 weeks), the most a baby can develop is to the stage where the baby is 3 inches long [2]. Babies during this period can be referred to as embryos. During this time period, the baby has just begun to develop a nervous system and brain. However, an embryo has not developed to the stage where it is conscious, in essence, it is a group of cells.

Is destroying a group of non-conscious cells that only have the POTENTIAL to become human beings murder? By this same logic, a woman is a mass-murderer because every time eggs are released from her uterus and are not fertilized, she has murdered hundreds of people. Furthermore, throughout pregnancy, a baby is completely dependent upon the mother, and thus the baby cannot even be considered an organism, even during the late trimester. This is because of the fact that an organism is an INDIVIDUAL living thing. [4]

Finally, when a baby is in the third trimester, abortions are extremely rare and are usually done to save the mother’s life as 95% of abortions done in the third trimester are done because of some sort of medical illness associated with the baby. [5] Very clearly, a baby cannot be considered an organism as the baby is part of the mother and thus abortion is not murder. I will now move on to my constructive points.

C1: GENOCIDE IS A SERIOUS HUMANITARIAN CRIME

This is a very straight forward point, within the definition of genocide we can see that genocide is the systematic extermination of a group of people. Throughout history, people have been persecuted because of their ethnicity or religion and have been mass-murdered. Probably the most famous example of genocide was the Holocaust, a tragedy where Nazi Germany exterminated over 6 million Jew’s because of their religion [6]! There is considered to be 8 stages of genocide [7]:

  1. Classification – them vs. us
  2. Symbolization – hate symbols are created
  3. Dehumanization – the victims are considered non-humans
  4. Organization – the militias and armies are organized
  5. Polarization – propaganda is spread
  6. Preparation – victims are identified
  7. Extermination – victims are eliminated
  8. Denial – perpetrators deny that a crime was committed

Clearly, these 8 stages and what happened during the Holocaust exemplify the crimes that my opponent has laid out except for sexual crimes and apartheid. Clearly, genocides are serious issues that are much larger than abortion.

Through a lower character count, I’ll keep it to one contention. Very clearly, I have shown why abortion is not murder and how genocide is. Thus, it is very clear that abortion is not a crime against humanity and genocide is. I look forward to my opponent’s response.

SOURCES:

  1. http://www.abort73.com...
  2. http://www.justthefactsbaby.com...
  3. http://dictionary.reference.com...
  4. http://www.biology-online.org...
  5. http://sciencenotes.wordpress.com...
  6. http://en.wikipedia.org...
  7. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 2
Chuz-Life

Pro

I appreciate my opponent's response in the previous round (R-2). Ishallannoyyo’s conduct and consideration of my questions and arguments confirms that I made a good choice in selecting him as my opponent.

I have read through Con's R-2 comments, arguments and answers several times now and it’s clear that Con does not regard prenatal children (children in the womb) as 'human beings' (R-2) and therefore he doesn't regard them as 'persons. ' Before I proceed with my R-3 arguments, I would like to ask my opponent if he would agree with the following; "If it can be established that a human being's life, personhood and basic human rights begins at conception, "Legalized Abortion would then be the Greatest Crime against Humanity in the History of Mankind."


Going Forward (follow ups):

In this round, I would like to address Con's answers to my previous questions in (R-2) and then offer some follow up questions on the same subject.

To my question; "Do prenatal human children not comprise an ethnic and or national 'group' of human beings [3][4]?"

Con responded with; "No, prenatal human children do not comprise an ethnic or national group because they are not human beings..."

I ask Con to be equally considerate of these follow up questions related to that answer.

F-1. If a human being in the first days, weeks, months of their life is not a 'human being,' then what kind of being are they?

F-2. Does Con disagree that a human being in the womb is a 'human' organism' [6] [7] [8]?

I would like to direct Con's attention to his own citation during R-2 where he listed 'Dehumanization - The victims are considered non-humans' as one of the stages of Genocide. Does Con still hold that a human being in the first days of their life is a 'non human' being?



To Pro's question #2 in round two; "2. Are prenatal human beings not deliberately killed when they are aborted?"

Con answered; "No as I will explain in my constructive."

Con went on to espouse the (widely held) view that a human child in the first days of their life (when they are 'a group of non-conscious cells') has only the 'POTENTIAL to become a human being.'

I ask Con what I consider to be the obvious follow up questions.

F-3. Where is it stated that consciousness is a requirement for a human being in any stage of development to be considered to be a human being? What source does Con use to support his claim? Indeed, several of Cons sources have information that runs counter to Con's claims.

F-4. How can a POTENTIAL being physically exist? Even as a new child is in the first days of their life (Con's source #4) they do physically exist. Don't they? Doesn't physical existence make them something more than just a potential being?

In Round Two, Con went on to contradict his earlier claims that a child in the womb is anything more than a mere POTENTIAL human being. He states; "During the first trimester (around 12 weeks), the most a baby can develop is to the stage where the baby is 3 inches long [2]. Babies during this period can be referred to as embryos. During this time period, the baby has just begun to develop a nervous system and brain."

F-5. Babies are not persons, Con?

F-6. How does one get a physical measurement of '3 inches long' on a POTENTIAL human being?

To the voters, I ask; "Does Con's use of the word "baby" here to describe human children in the womb not infer to you that he knows and acknowledges the fact that a child in the womb is an 'organism,' is a 'human being,' and is more than a mere POTENTIAL?


To my question (#3) in round two; "3. Are voluntary abortions not intended to 'prevent the births' of the children aborted?"

Con answered; "Yes, abortions are meant to prevent births, but this is completely different from what my opponent has underlined in the definition of genocide. The key word here is VOLUNTARY, meaning that the mother requested the abortion. No measures are IMPOSED to prevent birth. "

It's clear that Con did not understand my question or argument.

In my argument, the alleged crime is against the child and is perpetrated by the mother. Of course her actions are voluntary. It is alleged by Pro that the women who voluntarily abort their young are part "of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority [1]" as quoted and linked to in R1.

So, to explain it further for Con. It is the mothers themselves who are imposing (taking) the measures "to prevent the births" of existing human beings within the group [1].

At the end of R2, Con claims to "have shown why abortion is not murder and how genocide is. Thus, it is very clear that abortion is not a crime against humanity and genocide is. I look forward to my opponent’s response."


I ask Con again. "If it can be established that a human being's life, personhood and basic human rights begins at conception, "Legalized Abortion would then be the Greatest Crime against Humanity in the History of Mankind."

According to this source, there have been over 1.24 BILLION children aborted worldwide since 1980. [9]

Civility is not easy to maintain as Pro considers the denials such as Con's (above) to be contributive to those numbers.



[1] Crimes Against Humanity - http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] Elective Abortion - http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

[3] Ethnic - http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

[4] National - http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

[5] Dred Scott - https://supreme.justia.com...

[6] Zygote (organism) - http://www.plannedparenthood.org...

[7] Embryo (organism) - http://www.plannedparenthood.org...

[8] Fetus (organism) - http://www.plannedparenthood.org...

[9] Abortion Counter - http://www.numberofabortions.com...

ishallannoyyo

Con

I thank my opponent for his comments. I will now take this time provide refutation and expand my points.

I would like to ask my opponent if he would agree with the following: If it can be established that a human being’s life, personhood and basic human rights begins at conception, “Legalized Abortion would then be the Greatest Crime against Humanity in the History of Mankind.”

No, I would not agree with this statement for two major reasons: firstly, it would sidetrack this debate to whether or not human personhood and rights begin at conception (though this debate is clearly headed there), and secondly I generally do not agree with the statement even if human personhood began at conception (which it does not)

F-1 If a human being in the first days, weeks, months of their life is not a “human being,” then what kind of being are they.

This depends on the wording. If the human being has been born and is living INDEPENDANTLY of the mother, than it is a human being. If the “human being” is still an embryo or is still inside the mother, then it is not considered a human being as it is part of the mother. It is not any kind of being as it cannot live independently and thus is not even considered an organism.

F-2 Does Con disagree that a human being in the womb is a “human””organism”?
Yes, I disagree with that. As I did in R2, I defined the term organism based off of the SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION, not the definition of planning parents. As per my definition, an organism must be able to live independently which a foetus cannot. The human being in the womb is part of the mother.

Does Con still hold that a human being in the first days of their life is a “non human” being?

No as the “first days of life” occur AFTER the baby has been born. After a baby is born, it is a human. Before it is not.

F-3. Where is it stated that consciousness is a requirement for a human being in any stage of development to be considered to be a human being?

Nowhere, this is common logic. By your definition then, if consciousness and awareness is not a requirement for a human being in any stage of development, you would consider an egg and sperm to be human beings? They are the building blocks of human life, thus we can consider them the very earliest stage of human being, can we not?

F-4. How can a POTENTIAL being physically exist? Even as a new child is in the first days of their life (Con’s source #4) they do physically exist. Don’t they?

This is acting under the assumption that since there is a body, there is a person. That is not the case. I have already established that the fetus is not a human being, thus despite the fact that it physically exists, it is not a human being, it is part of the mother. Thus, it has the potential to become an independent human being.

F-5. Babies are not persons, Con?

Of course they are persons, I was using the term to describe the human being in the womb, it is a much faster and easier term to use than pre-natal children. Please do not misinterpret my words.

F-6. How does one get a physical measurement of “3 inches long” on a potential human being?

I have already explained this. The fact that there is a physical measurement, or that something is physically there, means nothing. By that same logic, sperm and eggs are also human beings because even though they completely lack consciousness, they are physically there, correct?

To the votes, I ask; “Does Con’s use of the word “baby” here to describe human children in the womb not infer to you that he knows and acknowledges the fact that a child in the womb is an “organism,”

You are trying to win the argument by preying on my word choice. NO, I am not acknowledging that a pre-natal child (or baby) is a person because it IS NOT an organism, IS NOT a human being, and IS mere potential.

In my argument, the alleged crime is against the child and is perpetrated by the mother. Of course her actions are voluntary.

So by your logic, it is a crime for the mother to menstruate? Thousands of eggs, I’m sorry, human beings, are killed monthly. The mother is committing a crime against her eggs. Of course not, the baby is PART of the mother, which you have not refuted. Thus, the mother is doing nothing wrong as the baby is PART of the mother. The mother has the RIGHT to do what she wishes with her body.

Civility is not easy to maintain as Pro considers the denials such as Con’s (above) to contribute to those numbers.

I’m a guy, secondly it is wrong of you to say 1.24 BILLION children, a more correct statement would be 1.24 billion CLUMPS OF CELLS THAT ARE PART OF THE MOTHER AND THUS THE MOTHER HAS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE.

My opponent has dropped many arguments and has had a complete lack of refutation. My opponent has not contested the fact that a fetus is part of the mother, and thus the mother can do what she wishes with the fetus. Pro has also failed to provide any refutation to my contentions and instead has decided to attack me with semantics and word-play instead of actually trying to refute my points. My points on why genocide is a far greater crime still stands. Many questions were asked and I have answered all of them. I look forward to Pro’s response.

Debate Round No. 3
Chuz-Life

Pro

Thanks to my opponent (Con) for an interesting Round Three. I think I will address Con's comments and other points of contention in reverse order this time. Con, I didn't acknowledge your earlier claim that "a fetus is part of the mother" partly because it's such an absurd (non factual) claim that I was confident that most of the voters would point it out to you in their RFD's and tell you how wrong you are. A child in the womb is NOT part of his or her mother's body.

1. Check the DNA.
2. Understand that the child's body and system has to release hormones and such to trick the mother's body so that she doesn't reject the child. This is objective proof that they are not part of the same body. QUOTE: "... Proteins released by the blastocyst weaken the woman’s immune system in the uterus, so that the woman’s body will not reject this object, which is made up of foreign material [10].
3. The mother and child are just as separated by the Placental Barrier as they are connected by it. But the barrier exists for the sole purpose of keeping the two bodies and systems apart from one another. QUOTE: " ...the placental barrier prevents the actual mixing of maternal and foetal blood but allows the passage of nutrition and wastes to and fro [11]."

I digress. Pro believes that most readers and voters will know that a prenatal child is a separate living organism and is not a 'part of' their mother's body.

In R-3, My opponent said: "... it is wrong of you to say 1.24 BILLION children (have been killed by abortions), a more correct statement would be 1.24 billion CLUMPS OF CELLS THAT ARE PART OF THE MOTHER AND THUS THE MOTHER HAS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE."

Aside from the above being biologically incorrect, for those of us who hold that legalized abortion is a crime against humanity, Con's comment is a perfect example of the '3. Dehumanization' that he himself cited from his source number [7] in round two. Con has a clear objection to children in the womb being referred to as "children." So, I would like to point it out to Con that the U.S. code already defines 'children in the womb' as such [12].

Quote: "... the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.[12]"

Con somehow extrapolated from my previous remarks that if an abortion is a murder and a crime against humanity, it must be a crime (using Pros logic) for women to menstruate?

I have to admit, I was not prepared for such a charge. Con, children who die in miscarriages (unless induced deliberately) have died of natural causes. How Con can equate the natural death of a child of any gestational age with the deliberate killing of a prenatal child by a paid abortionist is beyond Pros ability to comprehend. Does Con not appreciate the fact that we already have laws which make the unjust killing of a child in the womb punishable as a murder [12]? Yet, those laws do not make it a crime for women to menstruate. Do they Con?

As far as Con's claims in R-4 that a child in the womb "IS NOT an organism, IS NOT a human being, and IS mere potential?" Con has put himself in the unfortunate place of having to prove a negative. I remind Con of the fact that even Planned Parenthood (no friend to the anti-abortion cause) acknowledges the fact that the unborn are organisms.

QUOTE: "A human embryo is a whole living member of the species Homo sapiens in the earliest stage of development. [13]" ~ Robert P. George is a member of the President's Council on Bioethics. He is also a professor of jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University.

Again, I digress.

I asked my opponent whether he would agree that Legalized Abortion is the Greatest Crime against Humanity in the history of Mankind, if it could be established that a human life, personhood and basic human rights begins at conception?

Con answered NO.

Con answered NO. Because 1. "it would sidetrack this debate (R-3)"and 2. Because he does not "agree with the statement even if human personhood began at conception (R-3)."

To Con's credit, Con did answer yes; that he "would consider it to be a crime against humanity."(R-2) to deny the status of personhood to a human being or to a group of human beings" - in his remarks of round two.

I ask my opponent to specify what he would consider to be a Greater 'Crime Against Humanity' than the murders of the 1.28 BILLION children killed by legalized abortion since 1980. (again, assuming Con can be convinced of the fact that Pro is... that life, rights and personhood begins at conception.)

What could possibly be the greater crime against humanity than that?



[1] Crimes Against Humanity - http://en.wikipedia.org......
[2] Elective Abortion - http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com......
[3] Ethnic - http://www.thefreedictionary.com......
[4] National - http://www.thefreedictionary.com......
[5] Dred Scott - https://supreme.justia.com......
[6] Zygote (organism) - http://www.plannedparenthood.org......
[7] Embryo (organism) - http://www.plannedparenthood.org......
[8] Fetus (organism) - http://www.plannedparenthood.org......
[9] Abortion Counter - http://www.numberofabortions.com......
[10] Proteins - http://www.longwood.edu...
[11] Placental Barrier - http://lifepregnancy.com...
[12] U.S. Code - http://www.law.cornell.edu...
[13] Human organism - http://www.npr.org...
ishallannoyyo

Con

I thank my opponent for his comments. Please remember to keep R5 free of new arguments! On to the rebuttal.

A child in the womb is NOT part of his or her mother’s body.

1.Check the DNA.

DNA means nothing in determining what is or what is not part of someone’s body. Thus, by that same logic, if someone was to receive a heart transplant, that heart would not be part of that person’s body because the heart has different DNA? That’s ridiculous!

2.Understand that the child’s body and system has to release hormones and such to trick the mother’s body so that she doesn’t reject the child. This is objective proof that they are not part of the same body

Once again, just because the baby has to trick the mother doesn’t mean a thing. By your same logic, if someone to have a heart transplant, then the heart is NOT part of the person’s body? Because of course, medications are needed to trick the body into accepting the organ [1]?

The mother and child are just as separated by the Placental Barrier as they are connected by it. But the barrier exists for the sole purpose of keeping the two bodies and systems apart from one another.

But do you think that a baby could thus survive outside of the mother until birth? Of course not, that is the whole reason why the baby is part of the mother. The baby is completely dependent on the mother and is not a separate living organism and is not even an organism.

It is very clear that the baby IS part of the mother and thus the mother should be able to choose what happens to the baby as it is part of her.

So, I would like to point it out to Con that the U.S. code already defines “children in the womb”

I would like to point out that this is R4, and thus I believe it is inappropriate to define a new term that is essentially arguing for PRO, even though this definition is incorrect, regardless of which this definition doesn’t even apply to this debate. The definition in no way states that the child is a separate entity from the mother, it merely states that the child is a homo sapiens. Of course, the child is part of the mother and thus is synonymous with the mother which of course is a homo sapiens. This is not dehumanization as the child is not an organism, or human, merely part of the mother and thus this quote does nothing for PRO.


How Con can equate the natural death of a child of any gestational age with the deliberate killing of a prenatal child by a paid abortionist is beyond Pros ability to comprehend.

Every time a woman releases eggs, and those eggs are not fertilized, she has essentially killed a human being. This process may be natural, but it is still murder because a woman can technically have a child every nine months because she continues to release eggs until the age of around 50. It is common sense that almost 100% of women do not have a child every nine months and thus 100% of women are choosing to kill millions of children by denying them of life. Is this a natural death? No, this is a denial of life, and thus it is murder. Should we make it a crime for women not to bear a child every nine months?

Does Con not appreciate the fact that we already have laws which make the unjust killing of a child in the womb punishable as a murder?

That is what we are essentially debating on whether or not these laws should stand. The fact that we have laws against this cannot be used as an argument.

I remind Con of the fact that even Planned Parenthood (no friend to the anti-abortion cause) acknowledges the fact that the unborn are organism.

I remind PRO of the fact that the last time I checked, Planned Parenthood was not a scientific authority in the field of biology. I would also like to remind PRO that the definition of organism came directly from a online BIOLOGY dictionary, a much more reputable source for a definition than Planned Parenthood in the fields of science. The definition is very clear and can be confirmed by various sites. [2][3][4] Clearly, an organism MUST be able to live independently, something a child in the womb cannot. Thus, a child in the womb is not an organism.

“A human embryo is a whole living member of the species Homo sapiens in the earliest stage of development.”

This is an argument from authority (I have recently learned about these). What essentially Pro has done is he has said: “Well, Robert P. George said this and Mr. George is an authority on the topic, thus what he said is correct.” This is clearly false, just because Mr. George has said this doesn’t mean a thing. In a debate, an argument cannot be constructed around what somebody has once said, logic is required and I have logically shown that a human embryo is not an organism.

To Con’s credit, Con did answer yes, that he “would consider it to be a crime against humanity,” to deny the status of personhood to a human being or to a group of human beings”

Yes I would consider denying personhood to a grown men and women a crime against humanity, but I would NOT consider it a crime even if personhood starts at conception (which it doesn’t). I would consider it a crime once that embryo becomes a conscious, independent human being.

I ask my opponent to specify what he would consider to be a Greater “Crime Against Humanity” than the murders of 1.28 BILLION children killed by legalized abortion since 1980.

Once again, it is not 1.28 billion children. You have failed to show that the child is not part of the mother as I have refuted the arguments, thus in reality, nothing has been murdered, thus abortion is not a crime against humanity.

Through a lack of characters, I unfortunately must end my arguments here. I look forward to a great final round!

SOURCES:

  1. http://www.healthlinkbc.ca...
  2. http://science.yourdictionary.com...
  3. http://oxforddictionaries.com...
  4. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...





Debate Round No. 4
Chuz-Life

Pro

Thank you to my opponent and to those who took the time to read our debate. I hope it was as productive and informative for you as it has been for myself.

The Challenge:

The challenge of this debate was for myself (Pro) to prove that " Legalized Elective Abortion is the Greatest Crime against Humanity [1] in the History of Mankind. " The challenge for Con was only to show that it is not. As predicted in round one, the burden of proof has fallen most heavily onto myself.


The Arguments:


To support my claims and to meet my challenge, I (Pro) provided links to definitions and data in each round to show that an abortion does in fact kill a human child. That legalized abortion denies their personhood, their rights and the protections of our laws, etc.

My opponent (Con) takes it even further and to this point steadfastly denies that a child in the womb can even be considered to be 'a human organism (Rounds 2,3 & 4).' Con also believes that he has support for his denials in the references to definitions and such that he has also provided.

However, on closer examination of my opponent’s sources, we can see that his claimed ‘biological reference’ leads not to a recognized biological reference but to a "Wiki" like user contributive effort instead [14]. Not that sources like Wiki are always a less than reliable source. They are likely more often than not ‘correct.’ But they are not to be trusted as the final arbiter of truth, either. A wise approach is to use multiple sources.

Note that this is a rebuttal of the ongoing denials of my opponent and is not intended as a new argument. Con continues to be defiantly selective in his reliance upon the definitions that he feels excludes children in the womb from being recognized as 'human organisms,' beings, persons, etc.

Indeed, if we follow Cons own references we can see that "individualism [15]" does not exclude a child in the womb from being recognized as ‘a human organism’ as my opponent would like for us to believe. A human being in the womb can most certainly be distinguished from the body of the parent (mother) who carries them.

A search for the truth demands that we consider all of the definitions and all of the aspects regardless of our preference for the outcome or final conclusion. Con knows (or should know by now) that there are many scientific definitions that are less ambiguous in the inclusive nature of their definitions.

Indeed, from my opponents own cited reference, we find this:

Being:
'... a living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently [16]. '


CONCLUDING:
’A human being’ in the first days of their life in their mother’s womb is (by my opponents own cited source) ‘a human organism.’ Con’s denials and arguments to the contrary not with standing.


SUMMARY:

As noted earlier in the debate, there has been over 1.2 BILLION abortions performed worldwide since 1980. Nearly TEN TIMES the numbers killed by the Nazis in the German Holocaust (11 Million est.). My opponent (Con) continues to espouse the same rhetoric that was used to deny humanity to those violated by atrocities such as Slavery in the U.S. [5] and the Holocaust. Con cited ‘Dehumanization’ as an example himself (R-3) as one of the ‘stages of Genocide.’ Con agreed (in R-2), that
the denial of the status of equal “personhood” to a human being or to a group of human beings would be a crime against humanity.

I submit that my opponent is a (unknowing) participant in that very denial and by being so is an insensible part of the ‘Greatest Crime against Humanity’ in the history of mankind.

I have worked very hard to support my claims and I ask for your consideration in this debate.


[1] Crimes Against Humanity - http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] Elective Abortion - http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
[3] Ethnic - http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[4] National - http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[5] Dred Scott - https://supreme.justia.com...
[6] Zygote (organism) - http://www.plannedparenthood.org...
[7] Embryo (organism) - http://www.plannedparenthood.org...
[8] Fetus (organism) - http://www.plannedparenthood.org...
[9] Abortion Counter - http://www.numberofabortions.com...
[10] Proteins - http://www.longwood.edu...
[11] Placental Barrier - http://lifepregnancy.com...
[12] U.S. Code - http://www.law.cornell.edu...
[13] Human organism - http://www.npr.org...
[14] Biology Online - http://www.biology-online.org...
[15] Individual - http://www.biology-online.org...
[16] Being - http://www.biology-online.org...

ishallannoyyo

Con

Thanks PRO for an excellent debate.

DROPPED ARGUMENTS

I would like to get these out of the way before I move on to rebuttal as in my opponent’s final round many arguments were completely dropped.

Women choosing not to have a child every nine months would be considered murderers

I pointed this out in R4. I mentioned how women choosing not to have children every nine months are essentially depriving children of life and thus murderers. PRO has not responded.

A fetus is part of the mother’s body.

My opponent has once again dropped this point after his arguments that “the DNA is different” and that “the baby is separate from the mother.” I have responded to all of these points which my opponent decided to drop.

These two points are extremely important because both points destroy my opponent’s case. Firstly, if abortion is murder, then women who do not have a child every nine months are murderers too, and thus we should make that a law. Clearly this is not the case, so clearly abortion cannot be considered murder. Secondly, it has been established that the fetus is part of the mother’s body, and thus the mother should be able to CHOOSE what happens to the baby. Thus, abortion is really just the mother choosing to (for a lack of a better word “kill”) part of her body, which is clearly not murder nor should it be illegal.

REBUTTALS

But they are not to be trusted as the final arbiter of truth, either. A wise approach is to use multiple sources.
Pro has completely ignored the fact that in R4 I posted three other sources, one of which was a science dictionary, one of which was the online oxford dictionary, and the final one being the free dictionary website. I have provided multiple sources that all confirm the same fact: an organism MUST be able to survive INDEPENDANTLY which a child in the womb CANNOT. Thus, a child in the womb is NOT AN ORGANISM.

Indeed, if we follow Cons own references we can see that “individualism” does not exclude a child in the womb from being recognized as “a human organism”
PRO’s source for this assumption goes to “individual” which does not at all mention children in the womb and what he is claiming, so thus this assertion can be disregarded as there is no source. It only says that an individual is distinguished from others, but it also says that an INDIVIDUAL MUST BE AN ORGANISM for this to apply, thus this point is invalid.

A search for the truth demands that we consider all of the definitions

And I have provided numerous definitions that all confirm an organism must be able to live individually. You will find no definition that states “an organism can be completely dependent on another organism.”

“... a living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently)

Also from our sources we see that what my opponent has quoted WAS NOT the definition, it was (as my opponent so acutely observed) is a WIKI definition that was supplied by some person or something else(Jowett(Thucyd)), as you can see from the paragraph in which that quote is found. It is not the actual definition of “being”.

CONCLUSION

My opponent has decided to completely ignore the definition of organism that I have confirmed with four different sources and instead continues to define terms such as “individual” and “being” while completely ignoring the fact that an individual or being must be an organism, which in a child in the womb is not. My points were:

  1. Children in the womb are not organisms
  2. Children in the womb are part of the mother and the mother should choose
  3. Thus, abortion is not murder

My opponent has decided to drop many of these points (as I specified above) and instead chose to continue to define irrelevant terms without actually showing us why a child in the womb could be considered an organism, other than arguments that “somebody said it was.” Thus, abortion is NOT murder, and thus it cannot be the greatest crime against humanity. Therefore, genocide can be considered the greatest crime in the history of mankind. I thank PRO for a great debate, I urge voters to VOTE CON.

Debate Round No. 5
150 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by activist14 1 year ago
activist14
If I could still vote I would be disgusted by the conduct of Chuz-life in the comments. That is rude, impolite, and a terrible way to act during a debate.
Posted by babyy 1 year ago
babyy
Hello dear, my name is Ester, i came across your profile now.So I decided to stop by an let you know that I really want to have a good friendship with you. Beside i have something special i want to discuses with you, but I find it difficult to express myself here, since it's a public site. I will be very happy, If you can get back to me, through my e-mail iD(esteredmond(at )ymail.c o m)
Posted by proglib 1 year ago
proglib
What I've read of the debate so far has been very interesting. Good work Pro and Con.

I will not vote until I've read more, but hope to be able to vote. I have to read carefully as I'm heavily biased to Con. I may not vote for that reason.
Posted by malcolmxy 1 year ago
malcolmxy
Also, a placenta is just another organ. If a baby is born without eyes, they're still a baby, right? So, taking out the tumor from my friend, apparently, was a crime against humanity. I'll remember to tell her next time I see her.
Posted by malcolmxy 1 year ago
malcolmxy
I don't have a picture of it, and it is now at the University of Washington Tumor Bank, but my friend had a tumor with its own organs, albeit deformed ones, a circulatory system, it's own DNA (very similar to my friend's, but not the same, because if it were the same, it wouldn't have mutated like that). Given that it had no gender, it was certainly a different gender from my friend who was carrying all 22 pounds of it in her exploded ovary.

No placenta, but what is the purpose of a placenta? Whose blood fills the placenta? I understand that the placenta forms with the embryo, but it is useless without a mother's blood, and it is a temporary organ that, if it fails, the embryo has no chance for survival.

Does a women not have a choice as to how her own blood is used or not used? Are you saying that it is OK if I come take a pint of your blood and do what I please with it?

You're the idiot. Sans ONE characteristic, tumors fit your list of criteria for a human being. Are you sure curing cancer isn't the greatest crime in humanity (though, this tumor was benign, and crazy weird looking)
Posted by Chuz-Life 1 year ago
Chuz-Life
Really, Malcom? Show me a tumor that has its own organs, DNA, circulatory system, a placenta and even in about have the cases a different Sex from the mother whose body you claim he is 'part of?'

Like I said before.... You guys are idiots. And as idiots, you are beyond reason.
Posted by malcolmxy 1 year ago
malcolmxy
How can something both LIVE in another person and DEPEND on that person? Ask a tumor. The same principle applies. And, if you've ever seen a particularly large ovarian tumor, they have hair, teeth and all the same properties as a fetus.

Turns out, you can have it both ways.
Posted by ishallannoyyo 1 year ago
ishallannoyyo
Oh, I'm sorry for using the incorrect terms. A fetus residing within a female and is part of the female.

If the voted for me, why would they think that I was wrong if they voted for me?? Dude, it's really clear that a baby is part of the mother. How can you not believe that the child is part of the mother???? What are your arguments?? DNA is different??? They are seperate entities???? WHAT????

Final question, are you a republican?

Does this usually happen after your debates, you insult the other person in the comments section?
Posted by Chuz-Life 1 year ago
Chuz-Life
How can something LIVE IN IT'S MOTHER and DEPEND on it's MOTHER,.... if it is nothing more than PART OF her body?

You can't fking have it both ways....

Like I said,... you're an idiot.
Posted by Chuz-Life 1 year ago
Chuz-Life
Dude, you are a fking idiot. I countered your claims and I'm willing to bet that even those who voted for you think you are an idiot for continuing to believe that a child in the womb is 'part of' the mother's body.

I'm done talking about it, because you have an inability to see that you are fcking wrong about any of it.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 1 year ago
bladerunner060
Chuz-LifeishallannoyyoTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I didn't mind the passive-aggressive R3 as much as Jarhyn, but I agree with that RFD otherwise. I think Pro would really do well to try to break down the overall cocnepts and try to debate those individually. These debates often end up being unwieldy because there's SO MUCH that's disagreed on.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 1 year ago
Jarhyn
Chuz-LifeishallannoyyoTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO never defended his poorly-masked assertions and question-begging that merely having DNA of Homo Sapiens, and being he sole repository for that DNA qualifies some clump of cells as an ethical agent. CON provided several cases in which it clearly does not, and reasons that, despite being incomplete, were nonetheless better than PRO's bald assertion. Further, PRO had several awkward spelling/grammar mistakes. Sources to CON for PRO's clear argument from authority. Conduct to CON for PRO's poorly masked passive-aggression at the end of his R3 posting.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 1 year ago
RyuuKyuzo
Chuz-LifeishallannoyyoTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by MochaShakaKhan 1 year ago
MochaShakaKhan
Chuz-LifeishallannoyyoTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: dropped arguments + no clear division between the mother and the fetus have convinced me of con's case. I'm a little iffy on voting when I see that the debate has spilled over into the comments section, but since my vote doesn't change who is winning/losing it doesn't really matter.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 1 year ago
1Historygenius
Chuz-LifeishallannoyyoTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Good quality debate, so conduct to Con. Even arguments, but slight favor to Pro as he held his better. Pro also had more and better quality sources than Con.