Instigator / Pro
5
1472
rating
34
debates
45.59%
won
Topic
#5186
Abortion in most cases is Murder.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
0
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
YouFound_Lxam
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
4
1264
rating
363
debates
39.81%
won
Description
I will be defending the PRO side of this debate.
Definitions:
Murder: "the premeditated killing of one human being by another"
Abortion: "the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy"
Flow of Debate:
PRO Introductory Argument
CON Introductory Argument/Rebuttal
PRO Rebuttal
CON Rebuttal
PRO Rebuttal
CON Rebuttal
PRO Conclusion
CON Conclusion
The Conclusion arguments WILL NOT be open to rebutting the opponent's 3rd round arguments.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Thank you to my opponent Best. Korea for accepting this debate. I hope we will have a very conversational, and interesting debate.
Introduction:
Murder (as defined in the description) is defined as "the premeditated killing of one human being by another."
Premeditated simply means thought out or planned beforehand.
Therefore, all I have to prove is that abortion in most cases is the premeditated killing of one human being by another.
1. From conception, the fetus/zygote is a living human being.
What is a human?
"A bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens)"
I think we can all agree on this definition.
Well, from conception, the fetus/zygote biologically is in fact part of the Homo Sapien family.
It is biologically a human. It would almost be absurd to assume a non-human organism came from two humans.
So, from conception, a fetus/zygote is a human being.
2. Abortion in most cases is always performed by another human being.
Whether or not the abortion is performed by another human using surgical tools to rip apart the organism inside the mother, or the mother or doctor gives the woman pills to eradicate the organism, an abortion is almost always premeditatedly performed by another human being.
The only exception to this is terminations of pregnancy that aren't premeditated (emergency medical procedures) or (the fetus dies of a developmental issue inside the womb).
But these exceptions do not represent the majority of abortions not even by a close margin.
Therefore, I have shown that an abortion is almost always a "premeditated killing of one human being by another."
Therefore, abortion can be categorized as murder.
Con
#2
Since my opponent believes in God, he has to concede that God deliberately designed human body in a way that miscarriages happen, making miscarriage an abortion per given definition.
But my opponent carries a burden of proof on him to prove his side.
How will he prove that miscarriages arent deliberate abortions performed by some undetectable God or race?
He cannot prove this.
Its true that he created almost circular definitions of abortion and murder.
But the difference in definitions is that abortion doesnt need to be performed by another human being, where murder does.
So an abortion performed by God or aliens would be not murder.
1. From conception, the fetus/zygote is a living human being.
I agree.
2. Abortion in most cases is always performed by another human being.
I disagree.
"Miscarriage is very common. Some research suggests that more than 30 percent of pregnancies end in miscarriage, and many end before a person even knows they’re pregnant. Most people who miscarry go on to have a healthy pregnancy later."
So we already have number of miscarriages which greatly outweights number of abortions done by humans.
How will my opponent prove that these miscarriages arent abortions deliberately performed by God?
Round 2
Pro
#3
Thank you to my opponent for responding very quickly, so that we can get this discussion going faster.
Now, I have to say, I am surprised at CONS response to my arguments. Some of it was wrongly defined. Some of it was completely false. Some of it, had completely nothing to do with the debate.
Lets go through one by one:
Since my opponent believes in God, he has to concede that God deliberately designed human body in a way that miscarriages happen, making miscarriage an abortion per given definition.But my opponent carries a burden of proof on him to prove his side.How will he prove that miscarriages arent deliberate abortions performed by some undetectable God or race?He cannot prove this.Its true that he created almost circular definitions of abortion and murder.But the difference in definitions is that abortion doesnt need to be performed by another human being, where murder does.So an abortion performed by God or aliens would be not murder.
God has nothing to do with this debate. Red Herring.
he has to concede that God deliberately designed human body in a way that miscarriages happen, making miscarriage an abortion per given definition.
God has nothing to do with this debate. Red Herring.
I disagree."Miscarriage is very common. Some research suggests that more than 30 percent of pregnancies end in miscarriage, and many end before a person even knows they’re pregnant. Most people who miscarry go on to have a healthy pregnancy later."
Your source says about 1 in 5 pregnancy's are miscarriages, and that they are more common than people realize.
According to the NHS however:
"It's thought around 1 in 8 known pregnancies will end in miscarriage. Many miscarriages happen before someone knows they're pregnant."
Now I do concede to the fact that they are more common than people realize, but that point doesn't matter. The majority of abortions are not miscarriages.
Even by being gracious and using your 1 in 5 source, that would still only mean 30% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, not even close to a majority.
But, nonetheless. Miscarriages are not abortions because they don't involve one human deliberately killing another human. Therefore you have not even made any legitimate points in your argument.
Con
#4
Obviously, number of miscarriages is higher than number of abortions caused by humans, and my opponent still didnt prove that miscarriages arent deliberate abortions done by non-human beings.
that would still only mean 30% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, not even close to a majority.
I dont need to prove that majority of pregnancies end in miscarriage, since debate is about most abortions, not most pregnancies.
"The abortion ratio (the number of abortions per 100 pregnancies ending in either abortion or live birth) fell 13%, from 21.2 in 2011 to 18.4 in 2017."
So less than 20% pregnancies are abortions caused by humans, where miscarriages are 30% of pregnancies.
Now, my opponent said that mentioning God is red herring, but its not at all. Since God is a non-human being capable of deliberate abortions, my opponent has to prove that miscarriages arent deliberate abortions performed by God or some other non-human being. Proving a negative is indeed hard, but thats what my opponent has to do to prove his side.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Thank you to my opponent for yet again, another.........interesting argument.
Let's look if CON made any new arguments.
Obviously, number of miscarriages is higher than number of abortions caused by humans, and my opponent still didnt prove that miscarriages arent deliberate abortions done by non-human beings.that would still only mean 30% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, not even close to a majority.I dont need to prove that majority of pregnancies end in miscarriage, since debate is about most abortions, not most pregnancies."The abortion ratio (the number of abortions per 100 pregnancies ending in either abortion or live birth) fell 13%, from 21.2 in 2011 to 18.4 in 2017."
Again, the topic title is Abortion in most cases is Murder.
You have to prove to me, that Abortion in most cases is murder. m=Miscarriages are not abortions. Let's again look at the definitions that I provided in the description of this debate:
Murder: "the premeditated killing of one human being by another"Abortion: "the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy"
The word deliberate is key in this context.
What does it mean:
Oxford Dictionary defines it as:
Done consciously and intentionally.
Nothing about a miscarriage is conscious or intentional.
A miscarriage is:
the expulsion of a fetus from the womb before it is able to survive independently, especially spontaneously or as the result of accident.
Pregnancy is a biological trait organisms have to procreate. Anything that "naturally" causes the pregnancy to be terminated by accident is not intentional, because it did not fulfil its biological purpose.
So, miscarriages have nothing to do with the debate. Miscarriages are not abortions.
We are debating about abortions.
Also, you are wrong on your statistics. A far more credible source The CDC says:
"Up to 42% of unintended pregnancies in the United States end in abortion."
But that doesn't matter, because miscarriages have nothing to do with whether or not abortions are in most cases murder, because miscarriages are literally defined as accidents.
Now, my opponent said that mentioning God is red herring, but its not at all. Since God is a non-human being capable of deliberate abortions, my opponent has to prove that miscarriages arent deliberate abortions performed by God or some other non-human being. Proving a negative is indeed hard, but thats what my opponent has to do to prove his side.
(In this debate) God is not an accepted fact. It was not outlined in the description. It has nothing to do with the topic. We are arguing on the basis of whether or not Abortion is Murder in most cases, not whether God kills kids.
It's a complete Red Herring.
Con
#6
"Up to 42% of unintended pregnancies in the United States end in abortion."
My opponent confuses "unintended pregnancies" with "all pregnancies". The debate does not talk about unintended pregnancies alone, nor does my opponent's statistic talks about percentage of all pregnancies which end in abortion.
I already provided a link which deals with all pregnancies, and which percentage of them end in abortion(18%) and which in miscarriage(20-30%).
because miscarriages are literally defined as accidents.
Miscarriages are defined as not intentionally caused by humans, but my opponent has to prove that they were not intentionally caused by non-human beings or God.
When the definition talks of "not intentionally caused", we cannot use that as any proof of miscarriage not being intentionally caused by God or non-human.
In fact, it would be absurd to say that the maker of definition of "miscarriage" proved that miscarriage wasnt intentionally caused by God or non-human, and yet my opponent is unable to present that proof here.
So we can conclude that definition of miscarriage refers to "not being intentionally caused by humans", and thats what examples of miscarriage refer to.
So even if my opponent were to argue that miscarriages cannot be intentional at all, there would still be 30 % fetuses dying but still not intentionally caused by humans as mentioned in link I provided, but possibly intentionally caused by God or non-human.
Therefore, choosing to stick with such definition of miscarriage would only exclude those fetus deaths as certain miscarriages and return them to the state of "possible abortions uncaused by humans".
My opponent would still have to prove that those deaths were actual miscarriages and not abortions intentionally caused by God or non-human.
So out of all fetus death cases, my opponent must explain 60% of fetus death cases as abortions and as murders, where so far he only managed to explain 40% of cases of fetus death as abortions and murders.
Since topic deals with most cases, he must explain most cases of fetus deaths.
Until my opponent proves that those deaths are not abortions deliberately caused by non-human beings or God without the knowledge of humans, he cannot prove that most abortions are murders, since murders are defined as being committed by another human.
My opponent can either fullfill his burden of proof in next round, or he can forfeit. His choice. The burden of proof is on him.
Round 4
Pro
#7
I thank you to my opponent for participating in this debate. I will no longer be rebutting any of CON'S arguments, because of the description's rules.
Conclusion:
I think I have made my case clear.
The debating taking place is on the topic of Abortion. Specifically, the title says:
Abortion in most cases is murder.
1. Con has not challenged the idea that an abortion specifically is in most cases murder.
He only challenged the idea:
Whether or not miscarriages are abortions.
That can be a separate discussion altogether, but in the end, we are not here to argue whether miscarriages define as abortions. CON can claim that they do according to supernatural forces, but that in of itself (supernatural forces) is also a completely different topic.
So CON is using an argument that is not related to the topic, to justify a point, not related to the topic.
CON has really destroyed their opportunity to even make one simple point against me.
CON hasn't challenged the topic at all. They simply have gone out of their way, and time, to try and play with definitions that (even if CON was correct) would still have nothing to do with the specific topic we are debating.
Con
#8
Out of 100 fetuses, 50 die.
About 20 are proven abortions caused by humans.
30 are fetus deaths which my opponent didnt prove that they werent abortions intentionally caused by non-human or God.
So if my opponent cannot prove that, he cannot say with certainty that most abortions are murders.
He only covered 20, while the 30 remains unknown, making resolution unproven.
Thank you for the debate. I dont always use my debating skills, but you made it happen.
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:
Pro was able to support his case with an implicit logically valid syllogism, albeit a boring one which seemed disingenuous in its reliance on semantic truisms.
Con offers a fun counter, but failed to show any likelihood to his ideas which left them grasping at straws.
It’s a BoP issue in which someone else might rule otherwise. However, I view it as the duty of they who present a line of reasoning to support it, rather than to deflect that the other side has not absolutely proven it impossible. This is much like the legal standard of reasonable doubt (not to be confused with some tiny sliver of doubt).
That said, when it came to numbers from sources con excelled at understanding them, and taking pro’s evidence away (not outright flipping them, but still noteworthy)… Said evidence just wasn’t key to the winning arguments. It was however great groundwork for an argument which didn’t quite manifest.
A decent tactic comes to mind of a bandwagon appeal. Due to this debate being on a political issue, the beliefs of those who make the choice should not be dismissed out of hand.
From there it should be simple enough to show that
IF God,
THEN M <= 0.5
ELSE M > 0.5
Another tactic would be focus on Plan B as if it were abortion (which many cultists argue is true), which is most clearly not premeditated killing, as there is no confirmation of a pregnancy when the pill is taken (same with IUDs).
Thanks for voting.
I can see the point of reasonable doubt.
Without it, one could just throw a bunch of assumptions at opponent and every debate would be essentially a tie unless every thrown assumption is disproven.
Maybe I should have made it more reasonable, such as presenting arguments for existence of God which would lead to conclusion that God intentionally designed a large number of pregnancies to end in fetus death, essentially committing divine abortion.
I myself dont follow the principle of reasonable doubt when topic needs to be proven to be true beyond any doubt, but one can see the point of asking for doubt to be supported by some evidence.
Presenting doubts which are more probable than not is more effective for these debates, which is what I will try to work on in future.
I might get around to voting on this today. I can't promise due to a busy schedule.
I figured that with burden of proof on him, he has to prove resolution to be true by proving all counter-options false.
I simply presented a counter-option which he never disproved and which carries equal possibility of being correct as his side, making topic essentially unproven.
Of course, its not a commonly accepted debate tactic, but with it, one can counter argument almost anything, even this type of almost circular topics.
Fun argument. It initially relied too much on pro’s stated beliefs which he was easily able to counter as off topic; and then an unfortunately common misunderstanding of BoP. When you present an idea which is not a commonly accepted truism, you should provide something to imply it’s real. As an example, the Bible, and of course abortion laws being instituted by religious fanatics.
If doing something like this again, I suggest using the following debate for some inspiration: https://www.debateart.com/debates/950-the-bible-teaches-that-jesus-christ-is-god
It’d be more like blaming the bullet as a defense of the gun… Or if you’re a certain type of person, claim there’s only correlation not causation between being murdered and dying (people seriously argue this).
I went the other way. I am saying that God or non-human being deliberately causes miscarriages.
Thats like shooting someone and saying the gun did it.
You're right!
Abortions are usually performed by poison pills, not people. Even surgical abortions, it's been ages since anyone made the tools out of humans. 😁
The main flaw in definitions is that in order to be murder, it must be done by another human, where in order to be abortion, it doesnt need to be done by another human.
Definitions are a tough one for these.
Under the previous someone could just point to the laws of any non-theocracy; however, under the current it implies that this debate is just about if abortion terminates a pregnancy or not.
What I would expect to happen right now is either some noob accepts and forfeits, or someone to attack the human element kritiking that most abortions target non-humans. I admit I consider it implied that this is about humans, but if there is no other room for debate within the setup, then I'll accept an otherwise bastard tactic.
There you go.
Your definition says "unlawful".
So its a debate about if its legal or not.
No, debating whether it is by my definition Murder.
I mean, just debating if its legal or not?