The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Abortion, after the first trimester, is murder

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
CluelessDatabase has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/11/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 874 times Debate No: 110525
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)




It is my position that abortion, after the first trimester, is murder. My argument isn't a legal argument, but rather a moral argument. So arguing that it isn't legally considered murder is not a valid argument.

1. First round is for acceptance, as well as providing additional definitions if so desired. Clarifications may be provided in R1 as well, or in the comments.

2. No new evidence may be provided in round four (except for Pro's rebuttal of Con's last argument in round 3.) Otherwise, round four is for summarizing, and restating the points of the debate.

3. Pro must affirm that abortion after the first trimester is murder. Con must affirm that abortion after the first trimester does not meet the definition of murder.

4. No semantic arguments.

5. DDO rules apply.

It is important that we set definitions. I have listed two definitions below. If Con disagrees with these definitions, and wishes to provide their own definitions, they may do so within reason. However, their providing of definitions will not replace my given definitions, unless proven unfair, or misleading.

Murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. [1]
Human: Relating to or characteristic of humankind.[2]

However, as stated previously, I do not believe that legality makes something morally ok. Therefore, I would like to alter the definition of murder to: "The immoral premeditated killing of one human being by another."

Thanks to my opponent for accepting the debate.

[1] -
[2] -


In this debate I shall argue that abortion after the first trimester does not meet my opponent"s revised definition of murder.

Before I do so, I"d like to thank my opponent for inviting this debate. As this is my first debate on here, I apologise in advance if there is some standard format I should be following that I am unaware of.

As I see it, there are two elements to my opponent"s position (based on how he (I assume he, do correct me if I"m wrong) has defined murder). These are that the foetus should count as a human, and that terminating it would be an immoral act. I intend to use this first round to really flesh out what my opponent means when he talks of abortion after the first trimester being immoral. As I see it, there are three key questions he needs to answer to clarify his stance.

1.What are the morally relevant qualities of humans that make it immoral to kill them? (This may seem obvious but there are different paths one might take here)
2.Does a foetus possess these same qualities?
3.What happens at the first trimester that transforms the foetus from something it is acceptable to terminate into something that it is morally unacceptable to terminate?

I accept your revised definition of murder for the debate, although the definition of human will need some adding to it to clarify exactly what it is that sets a human apart from other creatures in terms of our moral obligations to it.

While I won"t try and give my actual points in this round, (as I don"t yet know your full stance and I don"t want to take a scatter gun approach to this), I would like to check we agree that the burden of proof should be on the side claiming something is immoral. For example, it is reasonable if someone says "action x is wrong" to ask for reasons before we agree. We wouldn't just assume all actions are wrong until they are proved to be morally correct. This isn't a point against you by any means, just one to clarify we"re on the same page.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Truth-Over-Emotion 3 years ago
Abortion in the first trimester is still murder. The first trimester is a total of forty weeks after conception. The baby's heart first starts beating at about 3 weeks. So the argument right there is already invalid.
Posted by KamikazeKennedyJr 3 years ago
Nobody ever feels bad about KEEPING the baby. Its always the ones who aborted who made the TOUGH decision. That's because deep down inside we all know it kinda is like killing a baby. BUT, women should be allowed to kill their babies in the first 10 weeks if they don't want the son or daughter of some crazy one night stand she had with some fucboi or if she was raped. Thats totally cool with me just don't make me pay for it with my taxes. Tax dollars shouldnt go around to support your hoeing around. If you can't afford it and you were raped then yeah that's fine because its understandable, but anything else isn't. Use condoms, pull-out, masturbate without lotion for a week so you don't cum that fast, I dont know, figure it out.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
The idea is the confession to murder is used to hide a lager crime. Abortion is an admission to murder. The meaning of pregnancy abortion is to say officially stop life no matter when it starts.

Abortion isn"t murder. Pregnancy abortion is the "consent to confession a person makes" made by that person describing a murder to be, or that has been. The confession is then being applied to all men, woman, and children. A prediction is being set in motion to an event we know nothing of, the debate is for truth. The legal contest is to see if the self-incrimination can be removed from pregnancy abortion as finding to see if the action is deliberate lie, or not. Do we need to give all woman permission to official stop life? If so why? Do we need to include all woman in a crime? If so then why? The argument in the confession is saying no not all woman are included. Yet the wording abortion is still insisting that all woman are included.

The self-incrimination is sharing presumption of guilt on all woman, then herding them together like animals using crime. It affects others as well and not only woman. It is unclear if this was a process started by woman, men, or both but a large group of woman are now defending the idea and its use publicly. Anyway the constitutional removal of self-incrimination to all woman comes in the way of word description to presume innocence Female Specific Amputation.
Posted by Minddagger 3 years ago
Con is not even arguing against abortion is murder, he is just saying murder is okay.
Posted by Varrack 3 years ago
Yeah, you need to be picky with definitions. It's not a big deal if your opponent misses subtle flaws like that, but I've seen so many debates get turned on their heads because the frameworks were made carelessly.

"Immoral" is still preferable to "murder" in this context, but I'd overlook it as a judge.
Posted by CluelessDatabase 3 years ago
I updated it
Posted by DrAnomaly 3 years ago
You contradicted yourself already, you said abortion is murder, but you defined murder an UNLAWFUL. So by your own definitions....

P1. Abortion is lawful.
P2. Murder is unlawful
C . Therefor, abortion is not murder.
Posted by CluelessDatabase 3 years ago
Varrack- Yes, I agree with your stance, as the definition of murder depends on legality. However, I don't believe just because something is legal, does not make it morally right. Would you agree with the definition of murder as "The immoral premeditated killing of one human being by another." Also, when I specified "no semantics" I meant no twisting of definitions out of context, but technically correct.

passwordstipulationssuck- I agree with your position, but I am specifically looking to debate someone who believes that abortion in the second or third trimester is not murder. So yes, pro-choice in particular.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
Murder may be a crime meant to be seen, however fraud, and perjury, are another possibility as several type confessions can be made by Pregnancy abortion. One confession is that the start of life is witnessed to have already begun. This is being debated by woman as they fight for the right to official end the started life. Meanwhile as contradiction to original truth woman go on admitting that not all woman are in fact guilty of the crime they insist all woman must united to use public as confession. Is this for power?
So yes, we can justify the limited self-defense. Again the obstacle built by the devastation and destruction of life lost to a presumption of guilt is Female Specific Amputation.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
Yes, it conception can have inalienable right. It is inalienably true as constitutional right that sperm demonstrates life without embryo. These inalienable truths reshape the idea of debate, and should be understood not all inalienable truth is by fact right and may be wrong. This is the inalienable fact that allows law to be tested by judicial separation. It is also an inalienable truth embryo demonstrates living though without ever showing the additional signs of life until conception, and addition of sperm simply lengthens a then shared limited state of life. These truths are held self-evident as United State even by science.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.