Abortion is murder.

Standing Arguments PRO has yet to address the meat of my arguments. I would like to reiterate that in order to avoid the conclusion of my syllogism, PRO must address one, or both, of the premises. So long as the premises stand, the conclusions stand as well. Review My argument is as follows: 1. If x is a human, then x is autonomous and sentient. 2. Fetuses are not autonomous. 3. Fetuses are not sentient. 4. Thus, fetuses are not human. (1, (2&3) MT) 5. Abortions cause the death of a fetus. 6. Abortions cause the death of non-humans. (4,5) 7. Therefore, abortion is not murder. In order to adequately address my argument, PRO needs to attack the premises. Simply addressing (4) and (7) does not work. So long as the premises stand, the conclusion does as well. Burden of Proof is on PRO to establish the resolution as true. My only obligation is only to refute his arguments. PRO’s arguments are insufficient to establish the truth of the universal statement “Abortion is murder”. Abortion is illegal in some countries Assuming this is accurate, I do not see how it leads to the conclusion that “Abortion is murder”. At best, it leads to the conclusion that “Abortion is and is not murder”, which is not the conclusion that PRO is trying to reach. PRO addresses my own universal statement, yet does not address his own. For PRO’s point to be sound, abortion must be illegal in at least most countries. “Several countries” is not enough. If Wikipedia’s numbers are at all accurate, the countries that PRO mentions are some of the only countries where abortion is entirely illegal. Abortion is legal in 97% of countries in order to save the woman’s life. Abortion is legal in 67% of the world, as of 2011, on at least the grounds of physical health, in 63% of countries on the grounds of mental health, and 49% of countries in cases of rape and incest. Again, all of that is assuming that Wikipedia is accurate on this, but considering PRO uses Wikipedia as well, I don’t see it as a bad move. The fact that abortion is illegal in some countries is not sufficient to establish that it is unlawful. Further, I think it counts as a point in my favor that abortion is legal in most countries. [1] Weak Analogies PRO claims that his analogy works to refute my own. PRO either misunderstands my argument from analogy, or seeks to strawman it. One of these is more gracious than the other, but the fact remains that PRO’s analogy couldn’t be weaker. PRO starts after the ingredients have been mixed together, and the “cake” has only to be baked to become a cake. My analogy applies to the beginning, where you know the ingredients have the capacity to become a cake, but the ingredients are not yet a cake. PRO’s analogy is more applicable to the fetus post-24 weeks, which I have conceded as a valid point at which to consider abortion as murder. PRO has not established that fetuses are humans. I have, however, given several reasons to consider fetuses as humans in development. From simple things like lacking the organ systems that all humans have, to the more complex like lacking the neurological functioning required to have awareness. There are other things as well, but I think those are sufficient to at least consider fetuses before 24 weeks to be humans in development. The Resolution PRO’s arguments PRO is defending a universal resolution. That means that he will have to show that ALL abortions AT ALL TIMES are murder. He has failed to do this. PRO claimed that he has establish 4 things. Abortion is: 1. Deliberate 2. Unlawful 3. The cause of the death of a human being. 4. Premeditated. I will concede (1) and (4). Those really aren’t up for dispute. However, I have already shown abortion to be legal in most countries. At minimum, 67% of countries permit abortion. In the cases where it will save the mother’s life, 97% of countries permit abortion. As I have noted above and in my other arguments, PRO has not established that fetuses are humans. It’s odd, but I think I have given a better argument for that. I find it reasonable to consider fetuses at the point of viability to be humans. Apparently, the only real difference between a viable fetus and a baby is mainly size. The organ systems are in place, the fetus can feel pain, there are noted indications of awareness of the external world (assuming such a thing exists, of course), and all of these are things that I mentioned allow us to consider a thing a human. PRO was supposed to argue for a universal resolution. That “Abortion is murder”. Burden of Proof rests with him to establish the truth of that. PRO has made several unwarranted assertions. One of them being that fetuses are humans because they have human DNA. My response to that was that if it is true that DNA establishes life, then all things are alive. That is to say, that are no things that are dead. However, there are some things that are dead, as such, DNA does not establish life. PRO argued further that there are several countries wherein abortion is still illegal. I countered by stating that some countries making abortion illegal is unsufficient to warrant the claim that abortion is unlawful. Abortion is still legal in most countries which provides more support for my statement that abortion is lawful. PRO then attempts to counter my analogy with a much weaker one. While my analogy could have been stronger, PRO’s is essentially that a cake is a cake before we bake it, therefore a fetus is a human before it is born. However, that assumes that the fetus is a human being already. The cake has already been made. The process by which it was made (mixing ingredients) is the more applicable portion of PRO’s analogy. So, PRO’s analogy actually works for me. Conclusion This has been an interesting debate. I thank PRO for the chance to discuss. Good luck with voting. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...