Instigator / Pro
28
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Topic
#4463
Abortion Is Not Murder.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 4 votes and with 12 points ahead, the winner is...
Sir.Lancelot
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
16
1524
rating
54
debates
74.07%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Definitions
I believe murder is self-explanatory, but so we have a clear outline of what the topic is. I’ll provide two definitions.
- “18 U.S.C. § 1111 defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice, and divides it into two degrees.”
- “To kill (a person) unlawfully and with malice.”
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1536-murder-definition-and-degrees#:~:text=§%201111%20defines%20murder%20as,forth%20in%20JM%209%2D10.000 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder
Preamble
The title of the debate is, “Abortion is not murder.”
As Pro, I will defend this in several ways.
- Abortion is generally not done with malice in mind.
- A fetus is not sentient.
- There is nothing “human” about a brainless body.
- Abortions follow strict timeline criteria.
- Not all abortions are performed on humans.
BOP
Since I’m arguing abortion is not murder. The burden of proof naturally falls to Con to demonstrate that it is. So I believe Con wins if they prove that abortion is murder in all cases, or the majority.
The Question of Malice
Since most intimate acts lead to unintended consequences whereby a woman who is unwilling to birth a child because she is not financially capable or doesn’t want it, she usually seeks out an abortion.
Due to this being very common, I’ll say that the majority of abortion cases are a result of birth control failure or a burst in the condom.
Thus as a cause, the effect of an abortion in this example is not premeditated, nor is it done with the intention of malice.
Life In What Context
- Yes, a fetus at the point of conception is technically “human.” But the argument of ending a human’s life is over an interpretation of semantics.
Because first of all, most abortions occur within the first 14 weeks of pregnancy and the human’s life functions like a cell, not a conscious and sentient person.
- The fetus is void of sentience, consciousness, and autonomy. It lacks the capacity to think, feel, or rationalize.
- So case in point, there is nothing “human” about a brainless body.
- The terms ‘life’ and ‘human’ are used so loosely, they are to be completely meaningless.
“They behave like cells, not like organisms.”
Timing and Deadline
The first stage of development for sentience and consciousness doesn’t start until after the 14 weeks of pregnancy. This is the cutoff point for an abortion usually.
Not all abortions are performed on humans
Some abortions are done for dogs, cats, and fish.
Case in point.
4 debates due all the same day..
I'll have to proceed with skipping this round, however, I will post my argument next round. Sorry.
Round 2
Alrightyyy then.
Extend.
Oops, almost forgot it again. I easily get lost in time when its three days long..
Anyways, thanks Pro for understanding.
1. Opening and Burden:
I. Abortion is huge controversial debate around the world, in this debate my position is Abortion, is Murder. Simply, abortion is killing another person. Hence, abortion is killing a person which is murder. However, some believe that abortion is not murder as of which is Pro's position.
II. Burden is mostly on me, Con. I should be able to prove that all or at the most the majority of abortions are murder. But this is to an extent. This should be taken into consideration in general also, is Abortion Murder? That's whats being covered.
2. Definitions:
I. Murder have been proved by pro, I agree.
- : “To kill (a person) unlawfully and with malice.”
I will be using this.
II. What is abortion?
Abortion is when a pregnancy is ended so that it doesn't result in the birth of a child.
III. What is malice?
3. Contentions
I. What is malice?
Malice is said is a desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another. When you have abortion, you are desiring to go ahead with a lethal injury to another. That is what malice is. No matter the reason, there was an intent behind it. In the case of abortion, you have a malice intention no matter why you want the abortion.
II. Does abortion anywhere (stage) in the pregnancy process count?
My simple answer: Yes.
Pro only has one choice, as he mostly regards. Which is to argue about the embryo, anything else would be going against his contentions. So, let's start there.
Embryo:
An unborn offspring in the process of development, in particular a human offspring during the period from approximately the second to the eighth week after fertilization (after which it is usually termed a fetus).
(Fitted to define within the lines of definitions.
I can't find the source, it will be listed next round.)
Consider:
This is a person, they are just developing. Same as children, they are not fully matured. Not fully developed but still human. Or, let's go a fetus, they are human but they are still developing.
III. Abortion in general terms
This relates to the second contention but a tiny difference. How do you prove the majority are just embryos being aborted? Can this be backed up? You must consider the entire world. In general terms, abortion is not just the embryo, also the fetus, etc. The general term of abortion is saying it is murder.
4. Rebuttals:
The Question of MaliceSince most intimate acts lead to unintended consequences whereby a woman who is unwilling to birth a child because she is not financially capable or doesn’t want it, she usually seeks out an abortion.Due to this being very common, I’ll say that the majority of abortion cases are a result of birth control failure or a burst in the condom.
This can't really be proven.. However, does it matter the reason? I defined the definition above, malice is an intended injury on someone. This is a lethal injury. My contention, is following closely after this.
Life In What Context
- Yes, a fetus at the point of conception is technically “human.” But the argument of ending a human’s life is over an interpretation of semantics.
Because first of all, most abortions occur within the first 14 weeks of pregnancy and the human’s life functions like a cell, not a conscious and sentient person.
So, if they are considered human how do you want me to respond? There is no technically, human or not? Person or not?
Most? Refer to my third contention.
- The fetus is void of sentience, consciousness, and autonomy. It lacks the capacity to think, feel, or rationalize.
- So case in point, there is nothing “human” about a brainless body.
When did that define a person? If I have a missing leg or arm, am I no longer a person? No. They still are.
A fetus can feel at a certain week in development.
- The terms ‘life’ and ‘human’ are used so loosely, they are to be completely meaningless.
Let's use person instead then.
“They behave like cells, not like organisms.”
I would like to address this, even though a quote.
It doesn't matter how they behave. Humans can be viewed to behave like an animal, intentionally try to behave like an animal, but they are a person. And these "cells" you are talking about, they are human cells. I repeat, human cells.
Timing and DeadlineThe first stage of development for sentience and consciousness doesn’t start until after the 14 weeks of pregnancy. This is the cutoff point for an abortion usually.
The problem is, they are a person. And that's killing them. Does it mater there first stage of development? They are a person. Just because there is a final stage of development with people does not mean I am no longer human, it doesn't matter when my development is. My development is coming, but by doing abortion you cut off their life, when going into development.
Not all abortions are performed on humansSome abortions are done for dogs, cats, and fish.Case in point.
I ask voters to disregard and void this argument per my definition of abortion,
But guess what, voters will find a way around this. I'll add in case.
If pro wants to continue with this:
- Who is doing the abortion?
- How do we know its not with malice?
- How do we know about the majority of abortions with animals?
--
Sources:
Round 3
BOP
Framework
Con accepts the definition of murder as established in the first round and acknowledges they have the BOP.
Rebuttals
I. What is malice?Malice is said is a desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another. When you have abortion, you are desiring to go ahead with a lethal injury to another. That is what malice is. No matter the reason, there was an intent behind it. In the case of abortion, you have a malice intention no matter why you want the abortion.
This is untrue. In cases of rape or situations where a pregnancy is unintended, a woman may need to undergo an abortion procedure to save her own life. Or she may be financially incapable of taking care of a child.
Since Con does not contest there is no sentience or functioning brain, that means they concede that human fetuses are incapable of feeling pain.
Terminating a pregnancy through abortion does not mean the priority or objective is to cause the fetus unnecessary suffering. Treat this as an unsubstantiated statement.
- The fetus is void of sentience, consciousness, and autonomy. It lacks the capacity to think, feel, or rationalize.
- So case in point, there is nothing “human” about a brainless body.
When did that define a person? If I have a missing leg or arm, am I no longer a person? No. They still are.A fetus can feel at a certain week in development.
- The terms ‘life’ and ‘human’ are used so loosely, they are to be completely meaningless.
Let's use person instead then.
A limb is a tool to increase mobility. An organism is capable of living without a limb. You don’t lose your humanity just because you lost a limb.
A brain is critical for sentient life. Without it, the body is just a husk.
‘Person’ makes even less sense than human semantically or logically when we consider the following.:
- There is no scientific consensus at which point a human becomes a ‘person.’ This is completely up to interpretation.
- A person should at least have the capacity to think, feel, or process emotion. A fetus has none of these things.
We realize a fetus is human from the concept of scientific terminology. It is incredibly misleading to apply this same term and definition in discussions of morals and ethics. Which is why I call the term meaningless.
The term ‘person’ is even more unclear because it relies even more on ambiguity.
I would like to address this, even though a quote.It doesn't matter how they behave. Humans can be viewed to behave like an animal, intentionally try to behave like an animal, but they are a person. And these "cells" you are talking about, they are human cells. I repeat, human cells.
Skin cells are also human. Is Con a murderer everytime they carelessly kill 100 skin cells when they scratch a mosquito bite?
The problem is, they are a person. And that's killing them. Does it mater there first stage of development? They are a person. Just because there is a final stage of development with people does not mean I am no longer human, it doesn't matter when my development is. My development is coming, but by doing abortion you cut off their life, when going into development.
What is Con’s criteria for defining a person? I stated mine and it follows a more objective groundwork. I also have a definition source.
- Person - A person (PL: people) 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.
If a fetus lacks the capacity for any of these things, then it is clear they are not a person.
Pro's rebuttals will be cited into four sections:
- Beginning
- Middle
- End 1
- End 2
I. Definitions:
No definition is contested, therefore accepted.
II. Rebuttals:
Beginning;
I. What is malice?Malice is said is a desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another. When you have abortion, you are desiring to go ahead with a lethal injury to another. That is what malice is. No matter the reason, there was an intent behind it. In the case of abortion, you have a malice intention no matter why you want the abortion.This is untrue. In cases of rape or situations where a pregnancy is unintended, a woman may need to undergo an abortion procedure to save her own life. Or she may be financially incapable of taking care of a child.
Pro's rebuttal is false.
The reasons he presents:
- Rape
- Unintended situations
- Save her life
Okay. This doesn't go to the real contention. This contention talks about malice, the reason is almost irreverent in the overall view of malice. How? I'll show you some examples down below.
Consider the following:
"I would like to get an abortion because of rape", what is this? This is the desire to inflict a lethal injury on them.
Due to you not contesting my definition of malice, I assume you accept the definition. Therefore, yes, this does apply. It is the desire to inflict a lethal injury on them, regardless of the reason.
Since Con does not contest there is no sentience or functioning brain, that means they concede that human fetuses are incapable of feeling pain.
Are we still on the same topic: Malice?
To confirm, I do contest this.
As said:
"A fetus can feel at a certain week in development."
Also to confirm: "The fetal brain begins to develop during the third week of gestation."
I would also like to mention that all pro has brought out is embryo, the earliest stage of the development. However, there are more than just embryo. There are many other developments where, as shown in the quote they have a brain.
"The human embryo is not something different in kind from a human being, nor is it merely a "potential human being," whatever that might mean. Rather the human embryo is a human being in the embryonic stage.
The adult that is you is the same human being who, at an earlier stage of your life, was an adolescent, and before that a child, an infant, a fetus and an embryo."
These are where all humans start.
Terminating a pregnancy through abortion does not mean the priority or objective is to cause the fetus unnecessary suffering. Treat this as an unsubstantiated statement.
But that's the desire. The desire is to inflict that on them and kill them in the end result. I can say I want to kill one million people to help the world. And you could say the main focus is to help the world, but it's still the desire to kill people.
Middle;
A limb is a tool to increase mobility. An organism is capable of living without a limb. You don’t lose your humanity just because you lost a limb.
Then they don't lose their humanity because they aren't fully developed yet. This is more discussed in End 1 and End 2.
A brain is critical for sentient life. Without it, the body is just a husk.‘Person’ makes even less sense than human semantically or logically when we consider the following.:
- There is no scientific consensus at which point a human becomes a ‘person.’ This is completely up to interpretation.
- A person should at least have the capacity to think, feel, or process emotion. A fetus has none of these things.
We realize a fetus is human from the concept of scientific terminology. It is incredibly misleading to apply this same term and definition in discussions of morals and ethics. Which is why I call the term meaningless.The term ‘person’ is even more unclear because it relies even more on ambiguity.
If this is an interpretation, how can you define a person as you did?
Do you see us calling a tiger a person?
Do you see us calling a panda a person?
Do you see us calling a leaf a person?
We as humans, people, were all born at the embryo, none of us skipped that stage. Since, you were born as an embryo how are you a human now? You can change yourself into the human race, such as a panda, leaf, or tiger couldn't change themselves into the human race.
We don't just hand out "Since we don't really define humans... here you go, panda. You are now a human." This is a bit more further explained as I explain how an adult was also once, just an embryo.
End 1;
Skin cells are also human. Is Con a murderer every time they carelessly kill 100 skin cells when they scratch a mosquito bite?
Human beings and embryos:
That has been developed, when you kill these skin cells are you killing off an entire human being? An entire life? The cells you talk about, are their life, are their human body as of right now. There is a clear difference.
These human cells, are they in animals? Are they in plants? No. They are completely different, and that is obvious. There is a clear difference that can be disticitive between who is a human, and what isn't.
I DO, and I didn't have time to mention the last round. Contest this, idea of a blob of cells to a degree. As in what I meant by "human cells" when I quoted it.
It states the following:
Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)
I would love to add to this but I don't have enough room.
End 2;
Continuing human beings and embryo:
What is Con’s criteria for defining a person? I stated mine and it follows a more objective groundwork. I also have a definition source.
- Person - A person (PL: people) 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.
If a fetus lacks the capacity for any of these things, then it is clear they are not a person.
Pro themselves state "self-consciousness"
"Even when fertilization occurs, the gametes do not survive: Their genetic material enters into the composition of a new organism. (A somatic cell that might be used to produce a human being by cloning is analogous not to a human embryo, but to gametes.) The difference between human gametes and a human being is a difference in kind, not a difference in stage of development. The difference between an embryonic human being (or a human fetus or infant) and an adult is merely a difference in stage of development."
There is more opinion based. My facts are in End 1, to an extent.
III. Continuation:
1. Animal Abortions: Pro does not seem to continue the idea with animals having abortions, leaving my questions that relate to continue. That said, as my definitions were not contested this disproves of abortions including animal abortions. I ask it gets left out.
IIII. Sources:
Repeat practice debates are like a time loop.
Thanks for the vote!
Oh, that's what that was. I thought your vote got removed for some reason lol. I was surprised because it seemed pretty detailed.
Completely fine, it's helpful. I am planning on fixing those mistakes with my redo practice debate again with him. We'll see.
Yep. It should be fixed now.
Sorry, Bella, I really,really wanted to vote for you, but you were beat by the burden.
Did you switch Pro and Con in the first half of your RFD? I got confused near the end.
Hah, I knew I wasn't the only one who thought ur vote was a little, um... lol. But thanks for the revote.
I support any change that would increase clarity on the issue.
Well, the site admin was wrong and needs to change it back for the reasons stated within the voting guide and the article clearly articulating what legibility truly is. I started a thread on this under the DART forum.
The decision to change from Spelling and Grammar to Legibility was a recent one (long after that 2019 voting guide post from bsh1) made by the site admin, not me. If you find the term insufficient or problematic, you're welcome to take it up with him.
It's clear based on this, https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1790/posts/76387, that you all need to change "legibility" to "spelling & grammar."
For the edification of all the powers that be at DART: https://creativepro.com/legibility-and-readability-whats-the-difference/
Thank you. That would be lovely. I always appreciate when someone makes an effort to comb through votes - it ensures that I'm doing my job thoroughly.
Guess what, I am going to start reviewing votes from several debates.
If any one of them are missing a single detail based on your flimsy excuse(s), I will report them.
If those votes are not removed by YOU, then it will prove two things: 1) you have a hardon for me, and 2) you're a hypocrite.
I'm not here to argue with you about this. You understand the rules for voting on the site. You can and do provide detailed votes. When you award multiple point categories, you have to explain all of them explicitly. If you want to draw my attention to something you said in your vote, then do so instead of jeering at me.
Put your glasses on, gramps/grandma.
You also are in the position to disagree with the report.
Like I said, you have been nitpricking and it’s clearly biased.
I deal with reports as I see them. If you have a reason for awarding legibility, state it explicitly, and make certain that it meets the voting standards.
“The voter sufficiently explains Arguments, but does not explain their reasoning for awarding Legibility.”
The reasoning is found within the explanation. It’s called: read between the lines.
Either way, this is nitpricking Bs!
You clearly have a Hardon for me.
Thx for removing Apprentice’s vote, not TWS. My bad. I responded too late
That report was not by me, i swear!
But thanks for removing it, whiteflame
😎
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TWS1405_2 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro (Arguments, Legibility)
>Reason for Decision:
Con’s argument is purely one of semantics laced with misnomers, which is why anyone who tries to engage in a debate/discussion on the subject of this debate – abortion is murder – ultimately fails to meet their BoP.
Con agrees to both definitions of murder Pro provides, but specifically chooses the second because it includes the term ‘a person’ within it, a term that is the crux of his entire position. Throughout the debate Con never defined what ‘a person’ is, and attributed this term to an “abortion anwhere (stage) in the pregnancy process…” In addition to Con’s misinterpretation and incorrect use of the terms ‘malice’ and ‘intent,’ this (never defining and/or correctly using the term ‘a person’) is where Con failed in his BoP and the debate on the whole.
Con also conflates a pregnancy, which is developing, as being equal to already born children. This is a false equivalency fallacy, since the pregnancy is a process of gestational development whereas a born person is in a process of biological and physiological growth (ie – maturation), it is not gestational development. Also, Con appears to not understand that being human in origin =/= being [a] human (being). This demonstrates to me a clear lack of understanding of the subject matter down to the basic use of factually accurate terminology in arguing their position.
While I could easily go on addressing the flaws in Con’s arguments, the fact remains that when you begin an argument with a false premise (and clear lack of understanding of the subject material), your conclusion will likewise be false.
Pro also did not seem to correctly use the term ‘a person’ either, but his final definition serves his purpose in prevailing in the debate. I do not agree with the insertion of the abortion on animal species into the debate (e.g. – red herring, irrelevant). Both parties spent too much time on definitions and how to interject their interpretation of terms into the debate, rather than debating the actual core issue: is abortion murder.
Pro could have used more sources to support his position but did not take the opportunity to do so. Con’s use of sources was basic (used to back up claimed definitions used in their argument, albeit incorrectly used); and one source, NPR… tisk tisk.
Pro clearly tried to stick to basic and scientific facts (ie - common knowledge), while Con repeated the usual unconvincing pro-life talking points, all of which are highly contestable and routinely debunked. Neither side used truly "reliable" sources; and both conducted themselves with proper decorum. Pro prevailed in this debate.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter sufficiently explains Arguments, but does not explain their reasoning for awarding Legibility.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheApprentice // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources), 1 point to Pro (Conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
Con provided more convincing arguments for the short duration of debating. There were some interesting conflicts when defining the concept of person, but Con’s definition and examples in the final round were quite persuasive. I will contribute that to his position as final speaker, as well as how he handled the potential of the embryo, which I didn’t quite think Pro argued for as effectively.
When concerning the definition of malice, I do think Pro had a more reasonable and realistic approach to the term in the context of the debate, but I don’t think he responded directly enough on the points where he had more leverage. I could kind of predict where he was going to go, but as it wasn’t stated, and the debate was cut short, I have to give it to Con.
Would be interested in another round, though. Great debate.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter sufficiently explains Arguments, but does not explain either Sources or Conduct.
**************************************************
Yes, I clearly misunderstood the definitions.
I believe my take on intent, is different in some cases. However, it still is with an intent.
With your definition, I can completely say, "I have the resolve to kill another because I got harassed". "I am determined to get rid of this child, because I do not want them." And if we go off terms of "morals" it is almost irrelevant, also being that we cannot possibly know somebodys mindset. That being said, i'm not only going into this with the (not) mom's mindset, but the doctors mindset. But it's all the same thing. "My job is to kill another because they got harassed", etc.
Think about it this way, someone bumped into me, I am determined to get revenge on their daughter. The one that is harmless, I am going off to hurt them with malice or in other words, 'criminal' intent.
With that out of the way, murder is a crime. And you are killing another being, therefore abortion is murder.
I'm not saying I won't take into consideration your comments / vote but i'm not going to fully or even mostly regard it either. I don't completely agree with your vote nor your opinion. I believe there is things unaddressed, but also to a degree unhelpful. I cannot even see how you awarded a certain point. But that's alright.. There were some things I saw that I could improve on from your vote and I will be using.
As with all the other terms you clearly misunderstood and incorrectly used in the debate, intent is one of them.
Murder is a criminal act. Therefore this debate hinges on proving abortion is a crime.
The legal definition of intent is as follows:
Criminal intent is defined as the resolve or determination with which a person acts to commit a crime.
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/element-intent-criminal-law#:~:text=Criminal%20intent%20is%20defined%20as,acts%20to%20commit%20a%20crime.
You are arguing the layman’s definition of intent here, which makes is a misnomer. Such a layman’s definition has no relevance to a criminal act, as there is no criminal intent to behave criminally in your scenario.
Abortion is legal.
Abortion is a medical procedure.
Abortion is not murder.
I'll be specifically responding to this:
"No girl/woman ever desires (with intent) to have an abortion; there is no malice on her part."
This is false.
When you say intent, do I or do I not go , specifically to schedule an appointment of sorts to have an abortion done? I go to the doctor for the abortion. I have an intent to remove the person. Just because that person may have had thoughts not to, or the person (child) was 'thrown' on to them doesn't mean it wasn't with intent. I intend for the baby to get killed and removed. Yes, it intent.
This is the correct definition of ‘a person’:
1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8
In short, 'a person' is a born human being. Birth is the criteria. Once born that viable fetus becomes 'a person' under the eyes of the law, socially, culturally and psychologically.
Murder is 'a person' taking the life of another 'a person' with malice, aforethought and without legal justification to do so.
No girl/woman ever desires (with intent) to have an abortion; there is no malice on her part. Abortion is a safe legal medical procedure whereby the majority of which (89-94%, give or take reported year) are done before 14 weeks gestation, with the majority of those being before 6 weeks. Less than 1.3% are done after 22 weeks, which is the point of fetal viability (for emergency or medically necessary reasons).
Since a pregnancy =/= 'a person,' abortion =/= murder.
Thanks, guys!
Yep. I will get to it.
Will do.
Taking the fetus out but killing it by a means other than just taking it out(terminating pregnancy) such as dipping it into HCl acid makes it possible for abortion to not necessarily be murder, even if we consider fetuses “alive” in all cases.
Will do
Would you guys be willing to vote on this?
Thanks for the vote!
Are you alright with a link to google docs (public)? Or would you like me to shorten it?
Sure, make another debate. I hope I'll be able to accept because I can't accept certain debates on here because criteria
Want to debate this subject?
Abortion - the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.
Murder definition is already stated in the debate.
Abortion is illegal in some parts of the world and we all know murder is illegal, so with that being said, abortion is definitely murder. If it isn't then why is it illegal in some parts of the world? It's the killing of a human. Just because abortion can be performed on dogs and cats doesn't make abortion not murder.
In order to have a meaningful debate, both participants must first establish a mutually agreed definition of what constitutes a human being, as well as a clear definition of murder. Without these foundational definitions, it is impossible to engage in a productive discussion on the topic. However, I look forward to discussing these subtopics so we can ultimately answer this imperative question.
Semantics.
Rape is not wrong.