Instigator / Pro
11
1485
rating
11
debates
63.64%
won
Topic
#4286
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
Better arguments
3
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
0
After 2 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
Sir.Lancelot
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 4,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
12
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
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.
To clarify, the first person to forfeit or break the character rule loses immediately, after that the rules no longer apply
Round 1
Pro
#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.
Con
#2
It is universally understood that murdering babies is wrong. That’s not being contested at all.
The question that remains is whether or not abortion is murder.
The Definition of Murder
The description refers to murder in the moral sense, not in the legal sense and that’s where the lines get blurred because morals differ by culture. Since Pro doesn’t define which version, that raises questions.:
- How does the moral version differ from the legal version?
- Are we extending the moral version to include stepping on an ant-hill as an act of genocide?
Even if the wording differs, the concept of murder in legality is semantically the same even in a moral context. The only difference being in whose life has value and whose does not.
Murder - The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.
I’ll propose this definition be used for now, unless Pro wishes to contest it with a superior one.
The Concept of Life
Pro mentions that life begins at fertilization which is backed by the support of 80% of scientists. That is too overwhelming to refute.
But then rises the question, alive in what way?
Skin cells are alive and you kill them everyday. Are you guilty of murder?
The answer to the major question is that the term ‘life’ is misleading. Fetuses are alive in the same concept of cells, not sentient creatures.
- They behave like cells, not like organisms.
Round 2
Pro
#3
My opponent's round is less than 3,500 characters, so I could forfeit and still win. But I will keep arguing for fun, especially since the character limit no longer applies.
First, I find it odd that my opponent agrees on using the moral definition of murder and then uses the legal one anyway. This definition doesn't necessarily even help their case because abortion is legally classified as murder in some places. Killing slaves used to be legal. Legality does not impact whether something is moral or not, so a moral definition should not depend on the law and change from one country to another. Therefore, I think we can reject my opponent's definition as self-contradictory.
A better definition will define murder as killing an innocent human being, regardless of immutable characteristics such as sex, race, sexual orientation, etc. My opponent has not contested that abortion fits this description, and so far, it's clearly the superior definition used in this debate. My opponent asks how the unborn child is alive, which I already answered in my opening; the unborn child has a distinct set of DNA. A skin cell has the same DNA as whoever it belongs to, proving that it is part of that person's body and not a separate organism. We know that an unborn child is a distinct organism and that they are biologically human. Because an unborn child is a human being, killing them is wrong.
Cells are parts of organisms or organisms themselves [1]. Different organisms have distinct DNA [2]. Because the cells that compose an unborn child have distinct DNA, they compose a distinct organism. So when my opponent says that unborn children behave like cells and not like organisms, he is providing you with false information.
A baby is a young child, or a human at an early stage of development. Because we agree that killing babies is wrong (and murder, too, as I think my opponent conceded) the scientific evidence resolves the question posed in this debate. Abortion involves killing an innocent human being, and it is murder from the point of conception.
Con
#4
My opponent's round is less than 3,500 characters, so I could forfeit and still win.
Please do. I would appreciate the Free Elo to my rating.:
- Forfeiting a round will result in a loss.
Whoops. Doesn’t look like that’s an option for you.
Moving on...
First, I find it odd that my opponent agrees on using the moral definition of murder and then uses the legal one anyway. This definition doesn't necessarily even help their case because abortion is legally classified as murder in some places. Killing slaves used to be legal. Legality does not impact whether something is moral or not, so a moral definition should not depend on the law and change from one country to another. Therefore, I think we can reject my opponent's definition as self-contradictory.
The definition is to provide clarification so we have something to discuss and stay on topic for this debate, as Pro left the term undefined in the description.
Leaving something like that vague makes it open to interpretation, and as I showed the definitions are technically the same.
A better definition will define murder as killing an innocent human being, regardless of immutable characteristics such as sex, race, sexual orientation, etc. My opponent has not contested that abortion fits this description, and so far, it's clearly the superior definition used in this debate. My opponent asks how the unborn child is alive, which I already answered in my opening; the unborn child has a distinct set of DNA. A skin cell has the same DNA as whoever it belongs to, proving that it is part of that person's body and not a separate organism. We know that an unborn child is a distinct organism and that they are biologically human. Because an unborn child is a human being, killing them is wrong.
There are time restrictions for when it is too late to get an abortion. Even if the fetus is still technically alive, the starting point for sentience is 14 weeks and by then, it is usually too late to get an abortion.
- “Thus, 18 to 25 weeks is considered the earliest stage at which the lower boundary of sentience could be placed.”
And abortions for fish exist too, so since your version limits abortion to only humans, then it logically follows that abortion is not murder.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Whoops. Doesn’t look like that’s an option for you.
See description: "To clarify, the first person to forfeit or break the character rule loses immediately, after that the rules no longer apply."
Whoops, looks like it is. This is where my opponents usually beg me for mercy.
My opponent does not appear to dispute that an unborn child is a human being. Despite quoting what I said, he's failed to actually respond to the problems I pointed out with his definition. My definition is not vague either; it's actually very specific (and more morally consistent). Furthermore, my opponent has ceded all the biological evidence supporting my case that an unborn child is a human individual deserving of rights. Instead of responding to all of my arguments, my opponent has raised a new point about sentience. People in comas are not sentient, and killing them is still murder. So clearly killing human beings doesn't stop being murder just because they are not sentient.
My opponent also makes Hail Mary attempt to win on a technicality by talking about fish "abortions", which are clearly not the subject of this debate. Saying "Abortion is murder" pretty obviously refers to human abortions, not to fish abortions, "aborting" a mission, an "unpleasant undertaking" [1], etc. If we want to get technical, abortion is typically defined as the induced killing of a human fetus or a medical procedure [2] [3]. Earlier we agreed that killing babies is wrong, and it's pretty obvious we were talking about human children.
But all of this is irrelevant since my opponent violated the character rule in the description.
Con
#6
But all of this is irrelevant since my opponent violated the character rule in the description.
...Well, that’s a shame.
I was looking for a productive conversation and had refutations to all of Pro’s points.
But as he won’t waive that rule and make an exception once, I can only infer that he’s either not interested or is unable to argue the topic.
Oh well.
Round 4
Pro
#7
I was looking for a productive conversation and had refutations to all of Pro’s points.
I'm sure
I can only infer that he’s either not interested or is unable to argue the topic.
You can still debate me for fun, it just won't help your rating.
I implement this rule to intentionally avoid people using low-effort arguments. It took you less than an hour to respond, and most of your arguments were pretty short. Also, you clearly didn't pay attention to the description. I have a hard time believing that was your best effort.
Con
#8
I actually discovered Pro violated the character count rule first. In round 1, the character count (without the block test) doesn’t even reach 3,000.
Characters (including spaces) 2497”
He quotes from sources and since the writing does not belong to him, his arguments do not reach the minimum limit. Instead of disqualifying my opponent, I’d encourage voters to ignore it because if all we have to do to meet the character limit is copy and paste, then it follows that this rule isn’t a serious one.
My opponent does not appear to dispute that an unborn child is a human being. Despite quoting what I said, he's failed to actually respond to the problems I pointed out with his definition. My definition is not vague either; it's actually very specific (and more morally consistent). Furthermore, my opponent has ceded all the biological evidence supporting my case that an unborn child is a human individual deserving of rights. Instead of responding to all of my arguments, my opponent has raised a new point about sentience. People in comas are not sentient, and killing them is still murder. So clearly killing human beings doesn't stop being murder just because they are not sentient.
Whether or not the fetus is a human being or not is irrelevant and is just a matter of scientific terminology.
The resolution addresses conception, which is the earliest stages of development. Medical limitations on abortion procedures rarely allow for late abortions, as when the fetus reaches a certain point of sentience, and a very late abortion occurs, then the ‘murder’ term may be applicable.
But as I pointed out in Round 1, my source points to the life in the conception phases as more like that of a cell. This is long before the fetus has developed the capacity for consciousness.
And as for coma patients.:
- If the coma patient demonstrates a possibility for recovery, then terminating their life could be seen as murder. Because the patient was sentient before their unresponsive state and had intended to live for longer, and did not give pre-consent to having their life ended. It’s also likely they weren’t put into a coma voluntarily and after waking up, they will still want to live on.
- If the head trauma for a coma patient makes the damage irreparable and the life beyond saving, then euthanizing them makes no difference anyway.
The fetus during conception does not process thought, emotion, or demonstrate the capacity for intention. So the comparison to a coma patient is moot anyway.
My opponent also makes Hail Mary attempt to win on a technicality by talking about fish "abortions", which are clearly not the subject of this debate. Saying "Abortion is murder" pretty obviously refers to human abortions, not to fish abortions,
This isn’t clarified anywhere in the description.
Round 5
Pro
#9
Despite pretty much conceding in round 3, my opponent has made the mind-blowing discovery that if you ignore some of the characters in my opening, my opening does not have 3,500 characters. I will remind the audience that the quotes he is excluding are from textbooks written by experts and provide strong evidence that is relevant to this debate. Block quotes are generally included in word count [1], and DebateArt counts the characters as well. If these characters are counted to enforce word maximums, why shouldn't they be counted to enforce word minimums as well?
I already explained that an unborn child is an organism with unique DNA, so my opponent's argument that an unborn child is "more like a cell" is patently false. My opponent seems to think that sometimes it is okay to kill human beings because that is "just a matter of scientific terminology." I happen to think that scientific facts are very important here, as my opponent does when discussing coma patients (which I will get to later). Forensic evidence is used all the time in court to determine if a human being has been murdered, and the designation of whether someone is "dead" or "alive" is a scientific concept in the first place. Ignoring science when classifying a particular action as murder would be silly.
A definition of murder should be objective and protect all human beings, not just those we like or those with certain immutable characteristics. My opponent, in contrast, thinks that the morality of killing someone depends entirely on whether it's legal. Remember that we are defining murder here based on morality, not legality. If my opponent was being consistent here, he would say that killing people in comas is wrong because it's illegal. But clearly, he doesn't really believe that murder is based solely on legality.
People in deep comas cannot process thought, emotion, or demonstrate the capacity for intention. My opponent says that coma patients have moral worth because they were sentient in the past and had intended to continue living. But this fails for two reasons. First, he invalidates the point immediately by saying it's fine to euthanize coma patients who won't wake up. So clearly past sentience is irrelevant here—my opponent thinks people get moral value from the ability to be sentient in the future, and that would include unborn children. Second, some mentally disabled people or infants might not contemplate their own existence or future and specifically think "I want to keep living". Infants are not self-aware [2]. Even if we knew they had never contemplated their future, killing them is still murder.
I notice my opponent didn't respond to the actual definitions of abortion that limit it to humans; they only seem to care how the term is used by the media. They also seem to actually think that this debate applies to fish abortions. I pointed out how nonsensical this is—we could just as easily claim that the debate is about "aborting" a project, and they didn't have much of a response to that either. There are 1,000 things they can nitpick about this debate, but reading the description makes it obvious what the debate is about. If they want to derail the debate and invent new rules for word count halfway through, I won't stop them, but I think the audience will be able to see exactly what they are doing.
I think it's been made clear that abortion is murder from the point of conception. Initially, my opponent and I agreed that killing babies was wrong, but when I pointed out that an unborn child is a human in an early stage of development and therefore a baby, he claimed that the scientific evidence was irrelevant. I think I've established several times by now that abortion is killing an innocent human being, which is murder by even the narrowest of definitions.
Con
#10
Let’s look back to my actual words from Round 3.:
...Well, that’s a shame.I was looking for a productive conversation and had refutations to all of Pro’s points.But as he won’t waive that rule and make an exception once, I can only infer that he’s either not interested or is unable to argue the topic.Oh well.
Due to the way it’s phrased, this doesn’t actually count as a concession. Even an implied concession is conditional on whether said rule is actually valid or not and as Pro violated it first, I discovered, I’ll just wrap this up with my closing argument.
Conclusion:
- Proven that abortion is not murder by pointing out it doesn’t follow the definition and that life functions differently at conception (no sentience.) than a newborn child.
- Proven that Pro’s definition of murder is limited only to humans, while abortions are done to different species.
- Proven that the ethics are different concerning comatose patients and fetuses.
Vote CON
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Interesting debate.
The focus on one rule overrode the topic too much. Were con to have booped in R1, I'd not consider more; but he honored the spirit of the rule in giving a real case.
Still, conduct to pro for the rule violation (even while it was argued pro broke it too, clearly con broke it more).
Needless to say, I do not see a concession in R3. It was more of a throw your hands in the air 'do you want to debate or not?'
I must say I find it weird to try to classify a legal term not in the legal sense. That said, I get it that pro did not want con to just point out that abortion is not illegal.
I do prefer con's offered definition, in large part for the "malice aforethought" which shows why it's different than mere killing, and of course for looking like it came from a dictionary (the legal part being irrelevant for this debate). Whereas pro's definition seems like it was pulled out of a hat, and is complete with pathos appeals (which would make killing of any person aside from Jesus Christ not murder).
I enjoyed pro's joke about two hearts, four arms, etc. While clearly intended to be funny, it gets across the point that the fetus is not merged with the mother at those developmental stages.
I think fish abortions were stretching it too far, even while there's a decent point implied. As highlighted with the ants, we intuitively do not consider the destruction of non-sentient organisms to be murder. This builds with a reference to 14 weeks being the floor for when sentience could begin, and a concession that at such point the morality of abortion changes.
Pro relied too much on the pathos appeal that it's a "baby" rather than defending that the destruction of any unique organism is murder. Pro opted not to defend his points as applying morally in early pregnancy, instead treating all stages of life as identical when they are clearly not (as shown with the behavior, and expanded with the coma examples).
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con broke a rule and conceded. Then tried to unconcede.
you violated via round 2. only 2064 characters was used.
It won't lower my ELO because mine is lower than his right now.
So I could get away with writing a lazy argument as long as I spammed the letter ‘g’ enough times?
Word count includes block quotes:
https://studenthelp.secure.griffith.edu.au/app/answers/detail/a_id/2511/~/are-direct-quotes-counted-in-my-word-limit%3F#:~:text=The%20general%20rule%20is%20that,%2C%20quotes%2C%20lists%2C%20etc.
I really think you're looking for excuses to vote against me.
i recommend this debate be deleted as nothing will come of it and neutral votes just lower elo ratings.
Which is allowed if you cite sources. Word count includes block quotes:
https://studenthelp.secure.griffith.edu.au/app/answers/detail/a_id/2511/~/are-direct-quotes-counted-in-my-word-limit%3F#:~:text=The%20general%20rule%20is%20that,%2C%20quotes%2C%20lists%2C%20etc.
both of you violated the rule. therefore the vote will be neutral.
But you didn’t write them, you just copied and pasted.
I’m not berating you. I think you’re a good debater, but.:
“ Technically, your first argument is below 3,000 characters.
“Characters (including spaces) 2497”
If it weren’t for your quotes in block test, you’re below the character limit.”
Those quotes are part of my argument. They're also pretty relevant to the debate.
Sir.Lancelot continues to berate me for not voiding the rule. Does it sound like he cares about the spirit of the debate or about winning?
Technically, your first argument is below 3,000 characters.
“Characters (including spaces) 2497”
If it weren’t for your quotes in block test, you’re below the character limit.
it violates your own integrity and spirit of the debate.
but i mean more than me will vote regarding it.
I believe you did avoid voting for me just a few days ago based on that very rule. Also, I think lazy people will avoid the debate instead of making their arguments longer.
i argued the same thing except with the forfeit part. now, the forfeit doesnt fall under absurdity, as the standard of the site is to not forfeit.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4245-is-abortion-murder-from-the-point-of-conception?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=14
No one's stopping you from posting it. You might even win if the voters all hate the rule.
I believe I have a counter argument that could win the debate if you voided the rule.
forcing a 3500 word limit does nothing. it only makes a lazy arguement longer. also, it will distract from the debate. if you continue to use such a measure, 1 day you will slip up, and no one will hear your crying as you lose a debate for typing 3450 characters.
I hardly think the rule is absurd or swindles anyone out of a productive debate. If anything, it filters out people who would only post low-effort arguments, which was a big issue on debate.org before I implemented the rule. There are similar rules against forfeiting for the same reason.
"Absurd special rules [can be considered invalid]. Whereas some clarifications in the description are conducive to the spirit of debate, others are clearly set to swindle someone out of having an actual debate." -DART's voting policy
So it's up to voters whether to uphold that rule or not. Personally, if I was to vote on this debate, I wouldn't. I find a minimum character limit against the spirit of debate. The spirit of debate is to convince voters that your side is correct. If either side can do it in a concise manner, then they ought to be rewarded, not punished, for that.
I use the same opening repeatedly, so I won't be surprised if Sir.Lancelot has his written already.
Termination of a pregnancy via killing of the unborn embryo/zygote/fetus
Define Abortion.