The Instigator
hi234
Pro (for)
The Contender
Our_Boat_is_Right
Con (against)

In America, Abortion is not murder.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
hi234 has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/6/2018 Category: Health
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 657 times Debate No: 118067
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (26)
Votes (0)

 

hi234

Pro

Pro = Abortion is not murder in the US.
Con = Abortion is murder in the US.

If you accept this debate, We agree to use this definition for person and for murder.

Person: A person is a being that has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, Morality, Consciousness or self-consciousness, And being a part of a culturally established form of social relations such as kinship, Ownership of property, Or legal responsibility. [1][2][3][4] The defining features of personhood and consequently what makes a person count as a person differ widely among cultures and contexts.

Murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

This is acceptance round only, Debate starts next.
Our_Boat_is_Right

Con

I accept this debate, Although I don't agree fully on the definition of person. I don't care what your definition is, I care what the definition is. I guess you could argue "a person" is different than a living thing or baby or human being, So lets go on.
Debate Round No. 1
hi234

Pro

Thank you, Con, For accepting my debate.
I have the BOP proving that Abortion in the US isn't murder and Con has the Burden of countering my argument.

The definition that by accepting this debate that both I and con agree on is the following:
"Murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. "
Now, According to the definition, To make abortion murder would require the following:
1) The act to be unlawful.
2) The act to be on purpose.
3) The act to be done onto a fellow human being, By a human being.
4) The act to kill.

The killing would have to fit all four of these criteria in order for this to be murder. Lets go over these separately.

1) The act to be unlawful.

According to Wikipedia, Ever since Roe VS Wade happened, Abortion became legal in the US.

"Prior to Roe v. Wade, 30 states prohibited abortion without exception, 16 states banned abortion except in certain special circumstances (e. G. : rape, Incest, Health threat to mother), 3 states allowed residents to obtain abortions, And New York allowed abortions generally. [37] Early that year, On January 22, 1973, The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade invalidated all of these laws, And set guidelines for the availability of abortion. Roe established that the right of privacy of a woman to obtain an abortion "must be considered against important state interests in regulation". "- Abortion in the United States, Wikipedia (https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Roe_v. _Wade)

Since abortion is legal (The opposite of unlawful), Abortion cannot be murder because the act is lawful, And according to the above definition of murder, It has to be unlawful. Abortion doesn't fit the first criteria.

2) The act to be done purposefully.

Most of the time, If not all of the time, Abortion is done on purpose. Since abortion is made for the action to be done on purpose, Abortion fits this criteria for abortion to be murder.

3) The act to be done onto a fellow human being, By a human being.

According to Lozier Institute, Life does begin at sperm-egg fusion.
"The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, Objective, Based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, Peer-reviewed publications). Moreover, It is entirely independent of any specific ethical, Moral, Political, Or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, This definition does not directly address the central ethical question surrounding the embryo: What value ought society place on human life at the earliest stages of development? A neutral examination of the evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined "moment of conception, " a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i. E. , Human beings. "-Lozier Institute (https://lozierinstitute. Org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/)

According to True Life, Life begins at conception.
"When all these things are considered, It is clear that both biology and the Bible support the scientific truth that human life does indeed begin at conception. This is a very important truth. But why? Because, As Greg Koukl (a Christian apologist) once said, Before you can answer the question, "Can I kill this, " you must first answer the all-important question, "what is it? " This could not be more true than it is in the debate surrounding abortion. How can anyone truly know whether it is morally right or wrong to kill the unborn unless we first know what it that is being killed? If human life begins at conception, It can be safely concluded that killing the unborn in an abortion, Whether surgically, Or chemically, Is morally wrong. "- True Life (https://www. Truelife. Org/answers/when-does-human-life-begin)

And is this being handled by another human being? Yes.

Abortion fits the third criteria.

4) The act to kill.

If the above sources are true and life begins at sperm-egg fusion, Then yes, The end result of an abortion is a killing.

Therefore, Abortion isn't murder because abortion doesn't fit the necessary criteria for it to be murder.
Our_Boat_is_Right

Con

I would first like to thank pro for being so civil.

I agree with the definition of murder. There are more aspects to make abortion murder, But I agree those would probably be the main ones, So I will go with it.

1) I agree on the rulings of the supreme court. However, The problem I have with this is the following-
It depends on ones interpretation of "lawfulness. " If you are talking from a legal standpoint, I guess so, But I think there is more too it than that. The supreme court, In the decision making process, Is trying to find out whether it is lawful or not. There opinions of abortion does not represent the U. S. Population as a whole. In this case, I do not think "lawfulness" from a legal standpoint is a good criteria because there is much more to abortion than a standard murder of people that are not fetuses. I say this because it is from one independent person to another, Not a fetus and a mother connected to each other. I believe "unlawful" should be more to the side/word "immoral. "

2) I agree. Abortion is done with a woman's consent, Which is by definition purposeful.

3) I believe on the standards of the basic science "when life begins. " So if it is a living being, Which we both agree on, It would be done on one person(the women) to another(the fetus).

4) I agree it is the act of killing.

I don't agree it should be up to the supreme court bias's whether it is "lawful" or not. I believe it should be the argument of "morality. "

Just to clarify, You think abortion is killing, But not murder? And do you think that it is immoral, By your definition to"kill, " a baby (abortion)?

Once again thank you for letting me debate you and being civil about it.
Debate Round No. 2
hi234

Pro

I thank con for participating in this debate.

Con agrees with the definition and murder and my classifications for something to be murder. Con addresses each of my stances separately and agrees with #2, #3, And #4, But not #1. While con does agree on the ruling of the supreme court he has a problem with the word lawfulness, And that it depends on how you interpret it.

"The problem I have with this is the following-
It depends on ones interpretation of "lawfulness. " If you are talking from a legal standpoint, I guess so, But I think there is more too it than that. " - Con

I ask con, What other ways can you view the lawfulness of something other than a "Is it legal" view?

Then, Con states that during the process of getting abortion legalized in the US of A, That the supreme court is trying to find out its 'lawfulness' and then states that the law doesn't represent the citizens of the US as a whole.

"The supreme court, In the decision making process, Is trying to find out whether it is lawful or not. There opinions of abortion does not represent the U. S. Population as a whole. " - Con

While I do agree that the view of abortion as a whole wasn't represented, The supreme court was basing their actions off of the ninth amendment.

"The Court declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, And instead asserted that the "right of privacy, Whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, As we feel it is, Or, As the district court determined, In the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, Is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. "[39] Douglas, In his concurring opinion in the companion case, Doe, Stated more emphatically, "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights. "[40]

Justice Blackmun's majority opinion explicitly rejected a fetal "right to life" argument. [41][42] The Court instead recognized the right to an abortion as a fundamental right included within the guarantee of personal privacy. [43] As a result, Regulations limiting abortion had to be justified by a "compelling state interest, " and legislative enactments regulating abortion had to be narrowly tailored to meet the compelling interests; in other words, Justice Blackmun applied a strict scrutiny analysis to abortion regulations. [44]"- Wiki, Roe Vs Wade (https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Roe_v. _Wade#Supreme_Court_decision)

I ask con, Does it even matter if the US citizens weren't represented when not allowing abortion to be legalized would violate the ninth amendment?

Then, Con thinks that the first criteria is unnecessary and that instead of arguing in legal terms, We should argue this from a moral perspective.

"In this case, I do not think "lawfulness" from a legal standpoint is a good criteria because there is much more to abortion than a standard murder of people that are not fetuses. I say this because it is from one independent person to another, Not a fetus and a mother connected to each other. I believe "unlawful" should be more to the side/word "immoral. ""- Con

The problem that I have with this is that while the law is objective, Morality is subjective, So if the first criteria is immoral instead of lawful, The courts can be more swayed to their own personal bias in cases, Which wouldn't make the trial fair, Which would violate one of our rights.

Then, Con asks me a question:

"Just to clarify, You think abortion is killing, But not murder? And do you think that it is immoral, By your definition to"kill, " a baby (abortion)? " - Con

Yes, I do believe that abortion results in a killing, But you have to keep in mind that to kill someone doesn't always equate to murder someone, And abortion doesn't fit the criteria for it to become murder because it is legal. If it doesn't matter if the killing is legal, Wouldn't that make the death penalty, War, Self-defense, Police shootouts, Etc, Murder as well? As for the immoral part, I think that while killing off a fetus is a bad thing, I do think that women should have the right to choose.

Back to you, Con.
Our_Boat_is_Right

Con

"I ask con, What other ways can you view the lawfulness of something other than a "Is it legal" view? "

There are multiple aspects to the legality of abortion, Which I will go over later in this argument. I was thinking of a more thrown around word standpoint, Not as pertaining to actual law, But one's opinion on how bad something is or how moral it is. Now I realize that is not a usual usage of the word, So I concede this point. I was thinking more of the "immoral" argument.

For the ninth amendment argument. . .

I agree on the quotes and rulings by the supreme court. We both agree that a fetus is a life, So what happened to the "right to life" in the D of I? I think that would out rule a subjective ninth amendment "right to privacy" argument. What about the baby's "right to privacy"? What makes it acceptable to kill a living being when you are essentially saying the women's subjective "rights" are more important than the baby's rights?

Unborn babies are considered human beings by the US government. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, Which was enacted "to protect unborn children from assault and murder, " states that under federal law, Anybody intentionally killing or attempting to kill an unborn child should "be punished. . . For intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being. " The act also states that an unborn child is a "member of the species homo sapiens. " (https://abortion. Procon. Org/)

"while the law is objective, Morality is subjective, So if the first criteria is immoral instead of lawful, The courts can be more swayed to their own personal bias in cases, Which wouldn't make the trial fair, Which would violate one of our rights. "

I do not think the morality of killing a baby would be very subjective, And especially since it is recognized by law. The lawfulness of abortion can change. . . It was changed in roe v. Wade and may be voted on or changed again in coming years. I don't think it is safe to say it is "settled" law. For example, Just because slavery used to be legal, Does that mean slavery is OK because or moral because it was recognized by law? No.

"If it doesn't matter if the killing is legal, Wouldn't that make the death penalty, War, Self-defense, Police shootouts, Etc, Murder as well? "

No, It wouldn't. The law of abortion can change. Those things don't have the same "right to privacy" argument.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by hi234 4 weeks ago
hi234
My argument is more than 2000 characters, So. . .
Posted by Our_Boat_is_Right 1 month ago
Our_Boat_is_Right
if u can't post it in the comments
Posted by Our_Boat_is_Right 1 month ago
Our_Boat_is_Right
hmmm thats weird
Posted by hi234 1 month ago
hi234
Why is it that every single time I post an argument, It gets deleted and it gives me 3 more days to post a brand new one?
Posted by HemetBeast 1 month ago
HemetBeast
Regardless of any individuals opinion; my opinion is that Abortion is Murder and my God will reward the workers of murder with the reward he sets for them. I believe the reward will not be pleasant so I abstain form any support of that wickedness. I associate for prosperity sake with people of like mindedness and disassociate with them that are for the wickedness.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 month ago
John_C_1812
By Law. Pregnancy abortion is an admission of guilt that describes the official end of a life. What alibi is there that Pregnancy abortion is not an admission of guilt to homicide? It cannot be life has not begun as the word abort would not be used at all. Abort means to officially stop and no-one can stop what has not been started that is not a subjective statement.

Pregnancy abortion was a foreign adopted idea with an illegal united state.
Posted by 32doni32nido32 1 month ago
32doni32nido32
By law, No, It's not murder. But the belief that abortion is murder is completely subjective.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 month ago
John_C_1812
hi234,
The issue of criteria is based on an admission that is made which is the cause of debate. There is a natural state of life that is perpetuated from a creation, Or not extended from a creation. In either case it is a known form of homicide. A woman really only performs an abortion when she become pregnant and although the term pregnancy abortion is used publicly to enforce the menstrual process which is the thing which is aborted it is used incorrectly. Unfortunately the law does not correct grammar. Pregnancy Abortion is not taking place when a woman terminates a pregnancy as this would be called something else, What it would be called is depending on surcimstance and does not qualify for a legal united state.

The debate is the words used to identify a medical process are placing all woman in the same category to which is placing them into legal consequence. A pre-meditation is not a reason of exception in common defense to all woman here. This debate is scripted as if it is. However a point that everyone can shares is blame of homicide by directing an admission of guilt publicly as United State.

This fact. This truth is placed aside by the script of the Pregnancy Abortion debate which is designed around an admission of guilt made publicly by woman and men. A person can admit they are by fact guilty of homicide by saying they refused sexual intercourse, And allowed the reproduction process not to take place. Yet no-one does yet. As a direct result of this one action a choice of abstinence it is known that the egg of a woman, Or the sperm of a man will die. As ridiculous as it sounds it is fact.

What is being done is that the two people who start a process are not allowed to oversee the process by their experience. An intervention is taking place form the back seat of a different automobile so to speak. By defending a United State Constitution at this moment there is a limit that is talked about on a woman"s use of a declaration to independence.
Posted by hi234 1 month ago
hi234
@cello242

I thank you for keeping this civil.

So, What you are saying is that for the definition of murder, Criteria 1 isn't needed.
"I agree with you on the affirmation that abortion fits criteria 2, 3 and 4. I disagree that the first criteria is necessary for the definition of murder. Here's why.

Legally this makes sense, And if you are arguing that abortion is not murder in legal terms in the US, Then this is a no-brainer. I'd argue that this is a philosophical debate however, And philosophically speaking this criteria has a major issue. If the act being unlawful is a necessary condition, Then if the US legalized killing of persons after birth then the killing of anyone could not be murder. Murder would be wiped out of the US even though the unethical killing of persons would still be occurring. I'd like to hear your thoughts if possible in your next speech" - cello242

If criteria one isn't needed, Then yes, Abortion would be murder. But also self defense, War, Police shootouts, The death penalty, Etc, Would also be murder by the same definition. Yet, According to the law, It is legal to kill someone who is threatening your life, We still have war and no solider has ever been arrested by the US for going to war, Etc. The reason why criteria one is needed is because according to the definition of murder, It has to be illegal.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 month ago
John_C_1812
Oops Pre-meditation
This debate has 2 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.