Abortion is Murder (providing for exceptions in extreme medical emergencies)

As discussed heavily in the Comments section of the debate, this resolution relies solely upon the agreed definitions of both parties. Because I do not deem a semantics argument to be advantageous to this discussion, I will try not to waste too much time in opposition of my opponents flawed definitions. That said, I do have a problem with Pros propositions and must address them as such. First, Pro objects that sperm nor ovum are alive. That is blatantly false. Sperm is difficult to think of as alive; however, they have the energy to fertilize, making it a living thing. Further, it's true that a sperm cell cannot live on its own and will die within 72 hours if it does not fertilize an ovum. However, because the sperm cell will DIE means that it must first be ALIVE. It thus meet the criteria of sperm being alive and validates my argument. About 3.8 billion years ago, life began. Since then, all organisms have merely been copies of that original organism. Thus, both sperm and ovum are living , and my argument on this issue stands. Re: My opponent's claim that I have straw manned his argument by mentioning the 'obvious' fact that an amoeba does not have human rights -- Pro has missed the point. I said that an amoeba has all of the same characteristics as a human zygote, so it is a potential human. Similarly, a human zygote is a POTENTIAL human. But POTENTIAL things are not deserving of the same rights as actual things. In other words, a potential human isn't worthy of human rights because it's not human, whether that potential thing was an amoeba or a zygote. Additionally, let us address the blatant straw man my opponent stated in the previous round, in saying that I have "claimed the opposite," in other words, claimed that a zygote is not human. What I did do was state the fact that a zygote is a POTENTIAL human. This is akin to how a tadpole is not a frog; it is a tadpole, who has the potential - due to its genetic make-up - to one day be a frog. This is not similar to calling a baby cow a calf, because a calf is still a cow (while a tadpole is not a frog). A zygote is NOT a human. It does NOT have all of the necessary human functions for survival on its own, in order to be considered human. Next, Pro states - and I quote it verbatim - "You hair is a part of your own body, possessing your own genetic code and being a part of your biological systems. As such, you may do it it as you wish." ... Ha. That's true, and that's exactly why a zygote - which is part of your own body, possessing your own genetic code, and being a part of your biological system (reproductive) is another part of you for you to do as you wish. It should be pretty clear by now that Pro is a huge fan of the style over substance fallacy or aspect of debating; his Texas Sharpshooting rings loud and clear when he says things like, "stop using old and recycled attempts to bypass a meaningful response" in reference to my valid arguments which he unsuccessfully disputes. Pro stated, "You claim that 'child cannot acquire any rights until it is born ' yet give no reasonable defense of that position." To reiterate my previous points, a child cannot acquire any rights until it can survive on its own because: An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn). Abortion is a moral right ï¿½€" which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body? [1] Re: You hold the burden of proof- you must demonstrate that my reasoning is flawed and provide a logical basis for your claims. Pro clearly is not familiar with the burden of proof fallacy, which very clearly indicates that PRO always has the burden of proof. Pro must prove that abortion = murder, but I have clearly falsified all of his premises. Re: You have not demonstrated that killing times of war, as a part of conflict, is, in fact, murder. Until you do so, this entire line falls apart. -- Actually, by Pro's very own definition of murder (the taking of a human life), then killing - even in combat - IS, in fact, murder. To say that war is a justification for killing is absurd. Wars exist for immoral reasons all the time. In the case of justification, then one can justify murder in other instances as well, i.e. vigilante killing. The fact is, that once decisions have to be made about whether or not something is moral or justified in terms of killing , things become shady and unclear. Pro sarcastically (and unnecessarily, and not so cleverly) asks: Do you plan to defend or explain any of your claims, or simply state them as fact and assume everyone will accept anything you say? I assert that embryos or aborted fetuses are POTENTIAL lives; not human lives, and therefore do not fit the appropriate definition of murder as suggested by Pro. My rounds explain why. Finally, Pro maintains that this debate is about whether or not abortion (outside of several extenuating circumstances) fits the definition of murder. Obviously one only has to look in a dictionary to determine if that's true or false; this debate is clearly about if abortion SHOULD be considered murder. Again, a zygote CANNOT be considered of the same value as human life, because it is NOT human life - it is POTENTIAL human life. I hate to use such a rigid analogy, but consider a bank bond purchased for $20. In ten years, the value of this bond may increase to $200. However, to say that it is valued at $200 today would NOT be true. It merely has the POTENTIAL to one day be valued at $200. Similarly, a human zygote - while obviously a very special, precious and necessary thing - is valuable, but not AS VALUABLE as an actual human life; a life that can perpetuate its own existence by itself. Murder is the taking of a HUMAN LIFE. Not the taking of potential human life. While that is bad - and you may even think JUST as bad - it is still not the SAME. I have 1 minute to post this, so here goes... Vote Con. Source: [1] http://www.aynrand.org...