Abortion is Murder

== Rebuttals == 1) Definitions I regret that my opponent feels confused on this. It's common knowledge in debates that if definitions are to be used, they are presented in the first round. This should not need to be specified, as it is a virtually universal practice. The reason for this is that debates get off track if participants are allowed to introduce new definitions at will. For example, Con says I could have introduced my own murder definition, in which case I would have cited one of the alternate definitions from Merriam-Webster: "Something outrageous or blameworthy," "To put an end to," or "something very difficult or unpleasant." Obviously, this leads to debating about the dictionary rather than the actual premise, which is silly. By accepting this debate, I accepted the 8 definitions originally posted by Con, and it was completely reasonable for me to assume these definitions would remain constant for the entire debate. As such, I am also within reason to reject the new definitions that I did not agree to. Con says I could have challenged the Round 1 definitions, and I did. I showed that there are alternate ways to interpret the Collins definition, and I exposed that the definitions can qualify abortion as murder if applied under other legal codes. I am inclined to believe that Con realized the weaknesses of the original definitions after my challenge, which is why they attempted to introduce different ones. I maintain they should not be accepted as valid. As for Con's claim that I have no case if I acknowledge and accept the Round 1 definitions, that's for the voters to decide. I will simply ask - if that's true, then why did Con put so much effort into finding new definitions if they already had the debate won? 2) Collins Definition I definitely did not drop this argument. Since Con admitted that the Collins definition is ambiguous, then we cannot be sure how to interpret it - this is what ambiguous means. Con's interpretation should be favored only if we assume Con is right, which we cannot. I showed how 2 out 4 of Con's murder definitions do not necessarily require unlawful killing. That's half - far from "most" of the dictionaries and statutes my opponent claims. But, even if I yield and admit the Collins definition requires unlawful killing, I reiterate we must then ask "unlawful according to whom?" This is a glaring weakness in my opponent's argument, and one they have failed to adequately address. 3) American Heritage Definition I'm beginning to wonder if Con even read my previous entry. I will reiterate - contrary to my opponent's claims, abortion is NOT "by and large" a valid excuse for killing under the law. As I previously noted, there are over 138 different legal systems under which all or some abortions are not valid excuses to kill. Con is asking us to ignore all of these and only consider the legal systems that do allow abortion. Once again, this is Special Pleading. Abortion is murder if Con's definitions are applied to any of these 138 countries. 4) Population Statistics Con claimed to be "merely showing that if we accept population statistics as a relevant metric, then it is in [Con's] favor to do so." Not quite. My job is to show that abortion is murder according to the given definitions. Con did not specify a particular country or legal code to consider, which leaves it open. So, as an example, abortion is illegal in Egypt. This qualifies as murder under every single definition Con has presented. Therefore, in Egypt, abortion is murder. If this does not successfully confirm the premise, then I don't know what does. My point with the population stats was to show that there are many examples throughout the world where abortion qualifies as illegal killing, which is most certainly not in Con's favor. Once again, Con can't have it both ways - if population percentages are arbitrary (as Con claims), then Con's attempt to usurp my source based on population percentages is equally arbitrary. 5) Choice of Law Con wants us to consider the example premise "Rodents are big" and argues my response would be to present the capybara and walk away. This is a clear Straw Man fallacy. First, at the risk of sounding redundant, I have not simply offered one or even a handful of "big rodent" examples, I have offered 138. Second, any reasonable person will understand that such a premise involves nuance. "Rodents are big" does not stand by itself, it demands context. Rodents ARE big compared to ants, and they are small, even then capybara, compared to elephants. In relation to our premise on abortion, Con has not specified any context. This gives me the freedom to present various contexts where the premise is true, and I have done exactly that. 6) Counting the countries Con claims I abandoned the population count argument because it "failed" and shifted to emphasizing countries. This is ridiculous. My original argument from Round 1 clearly emphasizes both metrics equally. To the contrary, it is Con who is attempting to shift the metrics, because it's obvious that their failure to limit the premise within a specific context is a fatal weakness in their position. == Conclusion == My opponent and I agree that a fetus is human life. My opponent and I therefore agree that abortion is the premeditated killing of human life. The critical question is whether that killing must be unlawful to be murder. I have shown that at least 2 of Con's murder definitions do not require an unlawful killing necessarily. But even if they did, Con has not sufficiently answered the question "unlawful according to whom?" I have shown multiple contexts where abortion is unlawful and can therefore be confirmed as murder. As such, I have sufficiently confirmed the premise: Abortion is Murder.