Instigator / Pro
5
1485
rating
11
debates
63.64%
won
Topic
#4245
Is abortion murder from the point of conception?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 5 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
the_viper
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 4,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description
This debate will cover all stages of pregnancy but will not cover cases of rape, the removal of ectopic pregnancies, or abortions performed to save the life of the mother. It will also not cover legality. Murder will be defined here in the moral sense. The burden of proof is shared.
All arguments given MUST be at least 3,500 characters to prove that both participants are committed to the debate. Failure to adhere to this will result in a loss.
Forfeiting a round will result in a loss.
Round 1
I would like to thank my opponent for engaging in this debate, and I would like to thank all of you for reading it. I also encourage you to vote afterwards.
In this debate, I will attempt to emphasize one central point: that killing a baby is a bad thing. Perhaps I will have more difficulty than I expect in establishing this point, as the killing of babies is often convenient to justify. I expect we will hear many arguments that justify murder for the purpose of economic convenience. I expect I we will also see babies and human beings referred to as something other than babies and human beings. But if we are to discuss abortion, it should be defined in simple terms, and abortion is best defined as killing a baby. When a woman goes to a clinic for an abortion, the doctor's job is to kill the baby, and if the baby is somehow alive by the end of the procedure, an abortion has not been performed.
Therefore, I hold that abortion constitutes the killing of an innocent human being. But when do human beings become human beings? The pro-choice camp does not provide us with a singular answer, but science does. In Essentials of Human Embryology, Keith Moore writes the following [1]:
Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception). Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.
In Medical Embryology, Jan Langman writes:
The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.
Note that the aforementioned zygote has its own unique human DNA. A Japanese zygote implanted in a Ukranian woman will always be Japanese, not Ukranian, because the identity of a fetus is based on his or her genetic code, not that of the body they occupy. Furthermore, if the woman’s body is the only one involved in a pregnancy, then for most of the pregnancy, she must have two brains, two circulatory systems, two noses, four legs, two sets of fingerprints, and two skeletal systems. Half the time she must also have male sex organs. To deny that abortion is killing a baby, my opponent must reject the overwhelming scientific consensus that life begins at conception, agreed on by 95% of biologists [2].
The most common method of abortion involves sucking the fetus out of the womb with a vacuum hose [3]. Another common method, known as D&E, involves ripping the baby's limbs off and removing them from the womb one body part at a time [4] [5]. Dr. Martin Haskell, an abortionist, states the following [6]:
The more common late-term abortion methods are the classic D&E and induction. [Induction] usually involves injecting digoxin or another substance into the fetal heart to kill it, then dilating the cervix and inducing labor...Classic D&E is accomplished by dismembering the fetus inside the uterus with instruments and removing the pieces through an adequately dilated cervix.
To argue that abortion is not killing an innocent human being, also known as murder, my opponent must establish that an unborn child is not human, that an unborn child is not innocent, or that abortion does not involve killing an unborn child.
Forfeited
Round 2
Debate has ended with win for PRO (see rules in description). Extend all arguments, not that it matters.
Forfeited
Round 3
Oromagi said to post something every round in order to win.
lalalalala
Forfeited
Round 4
Extend
Forfeited
Round 5
I rest my case.
Forfeited
Plz vote!
"To argue that abortion is not killing an innocent human being, also known as murder, my opponent must establish that an unborn child is not human..."
~ There is only one mammalian species on this planet that possesses the level of sentience that human beings do, and that species is homo sapiens. As such, homo sapiens - i.e., human beings - are the only ones having debates/discussions about "abortion" rights of female human beings. Not any other species. To levy such a demand demonstrates that the one making said demand knows less than they think they know about the topic at hand.
You're also conflating a pregnancy with being [a] human being, which it is not; not for the legal purposes of establishing the legal felonious crime of murder. A pregnancy has NO legal rights under law. The personal liberty rights of the girl/female take precedence over any internal matter. What is in and of her body is under the auspices of her control and none other.
Murder requires an already born human being taking the life of another already born human being for it to be, "murder."
"...that an unborn child is not innocent..."
~ "innocence" is completely and utterly irrelevant in this debate/discussion. It has absolutely nothing to do with guilt, innocence, spirts, souls, or religion.
"... or that abortion does not involve killing an unborn child."
~ Using the term "child" is a flagrant misnomer. A pregnancy =/= [a] child. Potentiality =/= Actuality. Never has. Never will.
A pregnancy has ZERO rights. 1 USC 8: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8
As this statute makes perfectly clear (predicated on the 14th Amendment), one must be born before they are bestowed all the rights, privileges and equal protection of the laws.
do you feel that he violated his own rule in round 2 and should be held to that standard? seeing he is holding con to his rules?
not really, if we adhering to the strictist interpretaton of the rules then CON lost according to the agreed-upon rule and no further argument was required or even wanted. It is reasonable for PRO to conserve effort here until we know whether CON has any game at all.
Someone's out for blood
ok. i can understand that.
do you feel that he violated his own rule in round 2 and should be held to that standard? seeing he is holding con to his rules?
Forfeit=auto-loss solves such conundrums and there are many. In any live debate, a debater who failed to show up for one full argument round would lose automaticaly. I think Viper should win this on conduct for forfeit and rules violation, so long as Viper keeps updating PRO's argument and CON keeps forfeiting.
what are your thoughts on this situation? have you ever encountered a rule that could tie up a vote?
Up to you. Tied votes don't have the same standards as votes that award points, but if this ends up being a full forfeit debate, it may still be moderated.
i understand. and that can be justified by invoking the spirit of a debate. the purpose of a debate is to create dialogue and FAIR grounds for exchange for ideas according to bsh1 and 1st meep.
You could award points for neither side. if tatie.bella does effectively do a full forfeit at 40% or greater, then you would have to justify why you see that as equally important to violating a rule set out in the description (i.e. why multiple forfeits would not be considered multiple violations of that rule in the description, and why their general absenteeism is an equal grievance, especially if they haven't made an argument by the end of the debate).
so if i interpret the rules as binding i can vote points as tie even if tatie.bella would be the first to forfeit 40%?
To be clear, there is no way for both sides to lose a debate. They can tie or one side can lose. There is no other option.
There is nothing automatic here. Voters may decide how to apply rules as written in the description, and the debaters themselves can make a case for how voters should view them. As long as the voter can adequately justify their decision, even if that means allocating some points to each side or tying the score as a result (I guess both would be some form of a "double loss," as you put it), they can. That being said, if a voter decides to award points based on the rules in the description, they must consider all those rules, and if one side forfeits more than or equal to 40% of the rounds, the debate can be considered a full forfeit.
I'm fine leaving this up to whiteflame, but I'll be annoyed if my first loss is on a technicality.
As chief moderator i believe you have ultimate authority to allow such rules to create such a scenario or not. i am unaware of any prescedents.
see below
no, first loss is usually the perimeter. however, due to the description given, simotaneous loss is alloted. the rules governing the usual flow of debates has been altered by consent to description by both parties. therefore, both have lost.
see voting policy under Cheating, absurd special rules, and i quote:
"… Not to be confused with merely somewhat unfair ones, like setting favorable definitions (to which their opponent could have requested alterations prior to the start)."
it is therefore implied that because alterations COULD be requested, that the rules laid out operate under authority.
it is recognized as the framework
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346-about-dart-resources-for-new-members
V debating jargon
and furthermore
VI Debating
"Debating typically begins in the first round of the debate. The rules of the debate, as well as the exact topic or resolution up for debate, should be made clear in the debate's full description or title."
https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1CJQT_PS9k82QkgrsyTQMKaQ90uY9yubVT0KPMR9XFcc/mobilebasic
see "rules" under "formating/making rules for a debate" I quote:
"First, these rules help you define for the judge what penalty should be issued for a forfeit."
unless there is a meep that specifically addresses this type of frame work, the description rules you posted are authoritative and create a double loss scenario.
Once someone loses, the debate is over. You can't lose a debate that someone else has already lost.
They have already won, he could say as many or little characters as they wants, it wouldn't matter.
"All arguments", they were never specific if they were talking about publishing an argument or making an argument. Since they weren't making an argument, and was clarifying they won, technically they hasn't lost. Let me be a bit more specific, since they weren't 'really' making an argument but an extend and end, they won by default.
Such as if another debate said "forfeited round = loss and at least 100 characters", con forfeited an argument and con said "extend". They have already won, therefore it doesn't matter.
according to viper's rules, he also has lost.
"All arguments given MUST be at least 3,500 characters to prove that both participants are committed to the debate. Failure to adhere to this will result in a loss."
"Forfeiting a round will result in a loss."
his round 2 post is under 3500 characters. he should have made 3500 characters even if it was just him spamming 1 letter.
he did not specify the conditions were nullified once the other person broke said conditions first.
If you change the time for argument to 2 days and switch the debate from Standard to Rated, I shall accept.