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

Con:: Pro maintains that human life is defined as being alive and being human, and that "a child" from conception is alive at any point of development. In that case, OF COURSE a fetus is alive; the very sperm and egg cells that create the fetus are indeed ALIVE. In that case, the "killing" of every living that that has the potential to create life (i.e. a sperm cell) would be murder. So, the next time you lube up and spend a few minutes wanking off in a tube sock to the point of ejaculation, just know that you are committing murder Rebuttal::Neither sperm nor ovum: (A)Regulates its internal environment (B)'eat' or metabolize energy from external sources (C)Grow or heal (D)Reproduce Therefore, neither sperm nor ovum meets the requirements for classification as Life. They are biological 'machines', if you will, and are incomplete by themselves. Con:: Remember that just because a zygote is alive, doesn't mean that it is subject to full human rights. Consider the fact that an ameba is alive, has DNA, and has all of the same characteristics as a human zygote except for the fact that it is not a potential person Rebuttal:: An amoeba is alive, but is not human. To state that an amoeba does not have human rights is self-evident and lends nothing to the discussion. This is a straw man, as you have addressed your own bastardization of my point, rather than any logical implication of what I have said Con:: However, that "potential" person is not equivalent to an ACTUAL person Rebuttal::The fact that you make this argument right after attempting to portray masturbation and ovulation as murder only serves to demonstrate the desperation with which you grasp at straws. Again, I have demonstrated that a zygote- to remove any trace of humanity, as you cannot face what it is you advocate and must hide behind some terminology- is, in fact, human, possessing a human genome. You have merely claimed the opposite, but have offered n o evidence or argument to defend your claim. Con::Similarly, the cells that compose of the zygote are in fact human, as Pro pointed out, the same way that the cells on hair follicles are alive and human. In other words, a hair follicle from your head is just as human as a zygote (it contains the same unique DNA that Pro-Lifers claim make a zygote a person), and yet nobody would argue that you cannot cut or "kill" your hair. Rebuttal:: I get the distinct impression that you did not read any of my points. 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- just as you are free to cut your own body but not to cut that of another (wo)man. Do try to address the points I have made and stop using old and recycled attempts to bypass a meaningful response- something you have yet to provide for any of the points I have made. Con then tries to claim Argumentum ad populum, apparently having no concept of social contract or the source of any ethical code affecting a group or population. The reason individual morality is irrelevant to the conversation is that we are addressing the issue of whether the 'abortion' of a human life fits the definition of murder- we are not at this time addressing the morality of such an act. We are simply demonstrating that any reasonable or logical definition or 'murder' would encompass the acts defined as 'abortion'- with the aforementioned extenuating circumstances. Con::An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. Rebuttal:: I have demonstrated that that we are discussing human life. Until you demonstrate the contrary, you building a house of cards based on fallacies and ignorance- you cannot base an argument on a 'point' that has shown fallacious. Furthermore, you claim that 'child cannot acquire any rights until it is born ' yet give no reasonable defense of that position. Again, your entire 'argument' hinges on the claim I have already shown to be false. You hold the burden of proof- you must demonstrate that my reasoning is flawed and provide a logical basis for your claims. Attempting to say that I bear BoP is merely an attempt to avoid defending your position. Con::if you do accept his presumption that nobody who is sane wants to be murdered, then it also seems reasonable to accept that nobody who is sane wants to murder. In that case, what about the soldiers who take pleasure in the killing of their enemies? Rebuttal:: 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. Con::Outside of the boundaries of an accident, killing at ANY time should be wrong and considered murder according to Pro. Rebuttal:: Clearly you either did not read or did not understand (A). Again, a strawman follows. Con::The resolution states that it is murder providing for exceptions in extreme medical emergencies, but who is to determine what these "emergencies" are? Rebuttal:: Obviously, I posted the wrong draft. It was meant to read 'medical emergency in which the lives of both mother and child(ren) are at risk, such as ectopic pregnancy. In such a scenario, where one either allows both to die or sacrifices a single life to save another, we can only allow, in the spirit of the Hippocratic oath, the reduction of suffering and death. This is due to the doctor's oath and obligation to preserve life. Con:: Most abortions occur during the first trimester of pregnancy, when a fetus cannot live independently of its mother Rebuttal:: A child as old as five, if left to his/her own devices, will die. A toddler will starve, dehydrate, and die without a caregiver. The logical implication of your argument is that the young, old, sick, and weak all fail to be human or possess human rights Con::Personhood =/= human life …. 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? Contract::(4) Civil rights (the right of women to govern their own bodies, independent of any social or legal obligation) . I already proved this to be false, as a child is not a part of either parent's body Con::Finally, I'll avoid the blatantly obvious fact that Pro spoke of murder only in regard to HUMAN rights, and didn't include anything about the intentional killing of animals for sport or (unnecessary) food Pro:: murder is, by definition, applicable to human life only. One can speak out against cruelty to animals, but the life of no other species has ever been recognized or accepted as equal to our own If you respond, please try to \-address my points for a change -defend your own Else you are not debating, but merely repeating the same tired soundbites