Abortion is a form of murder

My opponent's arguments, regrettably, were based mostly on red herrings and strawmen. --------- THE IRRELEVANT DEFINITION ISSUE------------ (a) Pro says in R3 that" I consider this attempt to contest the other component of murder -- willful intent and action -- is ridiculous...". Dear audience, please notice that I have NEVER argued anywhere that the mother engages in abortion unintentionally, or without "malice aforementioned". I have never attempted to use "malice aforementioned" to prove that abortion is not murder. Pro's arguments are, at worst, strawmen; at best, red herrings. (b) Nevertheless, since Pro deems the definition of "malice aforementioned" such a hot and relevant issue of contention, I will once again clarify it for his benefit. He accuses me of "dodging" the question about whether murder needs to contain malice, but I have already answered his queries. Let me requote myself from R2: ""malice aforethought" is a technical legal term that basically translates in layman language to "intentional" or "grossly reckless". Even mercy killings can be murder." As you can see, the translation of "malice aforethought" does not contain any hint of malice. And I explicitly said that even mercy killings, which might not contain malice, are murder. So, no: murder need not contain malice. "Malice aforethought" is a technical term that does not mean what its individual parts connote. ------------IS THE FETUS A HUMAN BEING?-------------- There are 3 possible sides: the fetus is a human being, the fetus has an indeterminate status, and the fetus is NOT a human being. I will evaluate the arguments for each side: (a) The fetus is a human being: Pro has presented only 1 argument, back in R1, as to why fetuses are human beings. However, that argument of his rested on the ridiculous definition of murder being the "intentional termination of a life". To quote his PCA#3: "PCA #3: "Abortion, AS DEFINED ABOVE, is the mother's (and/or join parents') decision to terminate the LIFE of the unborn child". Later, Pro accepted my definition of murder insofar he agreed that only human beings are murdered. Since Pro never proved anywhere that a fetus is a human being, his R1 argument is refuted. He said:"I do not recall and would appreciate Con pointing out that I accepted his definition that a human fetus is not a human being. " This is another strawman, because I meant that Pro has accepted my definition of "murder" (at least to the extent of accepting that only human beings are murdered). I never even defined a "human fetus"! (b) The fetus has indeterminate status: Pro argues" does Con truly assert that it is SAFE to take action to ensure X is not a living human being by terminating any semblance of life within X?"[emphasis mine]. This is again: a STRAWMAN! I never contested that if we cannot determine the fetal status, then abortion is "safe". I only contest that we cannot term it murder, because we cannot determine whether the fetus is a human being. To go back to Pro's analogy: if I shoot someone lying on the street, and if there is a GOOD "reason to question" whether or not the human being is alive, then you cannot classify me immediately as a murderer. To call my act murder, you will first need to investigate whether the person truly was alive. Even if he was alive, then I would be guilty of merely manslaughter (not murder). In R4, Pro simply proves my point when he says: "If I killed a person I didn't know was there, I would be guilty of manslaughter (accidental infliction of death) under both the law and in my own book." Yes, manslaughter, but not murder! Furthermore, Pro's analogy is flawed because it appeals to a situation where common-sense tells us that people lying on the side of the road are, more often than not, still alive. We have no common experience to tell us that fetuses are, more often than not, alive. (c) A fetus is not a human being: I argued that a fetus is not a human being because it satisfies none of the following conditions: having conscious thought, memory, an ability to breathe or make sounds, a social identity, an ability to feel pain [1] [2](which I just added now), and a separate identity. All of Con's arguents against mine go in this form: person X (an amnesiac) lacks one of the conditions (say memory), but is still considered human. Yes, but the amnesiac satisfies other conditions: the amnesiac has a social identity, can speak, can breathe, can feel pain and has a separate identity. Similarly, a new-born baby, a person with Asperger's,m a comatose person, etc, which Pro uses as counter-examples, all satisfy at least one of the previous mentioned conditions. A fetus satisfies none, because of which I argue it is not a human being. Pro says: "I could sum up Con's remaining argument as "It is absurd to consider the possibility that a fetus is a living human being, because a fetus is legally determined to not be a living human being,..."". Another STRAWMAN! I never argued that fetuses cannot be human beings because they lack legal recognition in the status quo. I argued that fetuses cannot get a legal identity because to grant them a legal identity would lead to absurd conclusions. However, I understand it is possible to grant fetuses limited legal rights, so I retract this point. ---------SUMMARY------------- My contention that the fetus is not a human being still stands, because a fetus does not satisfy any of my aforementioned conditions. Really, a fetus is no more than a cockroach injected with human cells. Indeed, you could feel some remorse for squashing cockroaches, because they have some rudimentary thinking ability, can feel pain, can respire, and have an individual identity, but fetuses lack even these. SOURCES: [1] "Expert Said Fetuses Do Not Feel Pain": http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... [2] "When Can Fetuses Feel Pain?": http://www.cbsnews.com...