Should abortion be legal?
Debate Rounds (3)
1: "Murder". Merriam-Webster. Retrieved January 9, 2015.
The definition you provided for murder completely undermines your presupposition that abortion is murder. Murder is unlawful killing with malice aforethought of another human. Unless you only consider abortion murder in countries where abortion is already illegal, your presupposition - in addition to already being unsubstantiated - is meaningless. Furthermore, and similarly, malice "in its legal sense, applies to a wrongful act done intentionally, without legal justification or excuse". The obvious legal justification is that it's....well, legal.
Law Dictionary: What is MALICE? definition of MALICE (Black's Law Dictionary)
You are correct, I do think I undermined my presupposition that abortion is murder. With that being said, however, your definition of murder is interesting as is your definition of malice. In both, you simply state that abortion is legal simply because "it's... well, legal." My point concerns itself with that abortion should not be legal because it is identical to murder in every way except for the fact that one is legal and the other is not. Abortion is simply legal murder.
Legal murder is this: The lawful killing with malice aforethought of another human.
Fetuses have unique human DNA. Fetuses are therefore humans that are unique. In civilized countries, the killing of other humans is illegal. Therefore, the killing of fetuses should be illegal.
That's a straw man. I never said why it's legal. I just demonstrated that its illegality is a prerequisite to its consideration as murder. As such, legal murder is an oxymoron.
Identical twins don't have unique DNA. Are they not human? I'm not denying the antecedent here. I'm assuming you mean that unique human DNA is a requirement for being human, rather than being one of many possible things (without all of them being required) that makes one human. In any case, I don't wish to pursue you on this point because I agree that a fetus is human. I'm against abortion from a personal standpoint, just not a legal one (which, due to the character limit, I'll make my case for in round 3).
debaterTater123 forfeited this round.
One of the main reasons for making something illegal - and the sole reason used in the case of abortion (and the reason you have continually used in this debate) - is that of the harm principle. A requirement to justify governmental interference under the harm principle is that it must reduce harm. Not only is this not the case with outlawing abortion (abortion rates are roughly the same in countries where it's illegal), but it actually adds harm by forcing women to perform abortions on themselves or go to an unsafe environment. This results in 47,000 deaths worldwide annually. Legally speaking, there is no pro-life. There is only pro-choice or pro-coathanger.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's fair semantics rebutted Con's arguments twice, which is enough to win the debate. In particular, since Pro noted that "legal murder" is an oxymoron, this seemed too damning a rebuttal to give Con arguments, so they go to Pro. Conduct to Pro for Con's forfeit. I won't be giving source points because I thought they were even. The relevant sources provided ended about on equal terms. Pro's extra sources were not integral to the debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.