Abortion is Murder

Re: Definitions Pro characterizes my introduction of new definitions as "the weakest form of argument", "poor conduct", and "a move of desperation". Pro supports this position by arguing that introducing the definitions in the first round allows both participants to read and agree to them prior to accepting the debate, and that introducing them in prior rounds "deprives [Pro] of this opportunity". Pro's accusation of misconduct is false. Pro never had to and there is no indication that Pro had to "accept and agree to the definitions" from round 1; It was never my intention to trick Pro in to thinking that the round 1 definitions were binding. There was no rule posted which said something to the effect of "for purposes of this debate, the following definitions shall be considered accurate". To the contrary, the definitions were used argumentatively (appearing after " *** BEGIN OPENING ARGUMENT*** " ) as a citation to authoritative sources to support my contention that all murder means an unlawful act. My round 1 argument was, in fact, originally a round 2 argument that was posted in a prior debate on this topic where an opponent flaked: http://www.debate.org... Pro could have challenged the definitions introduced in round 1 as inaccurate and supported that challenge by introducing his own definitions, citing his own authorities, introducing his own evidence; etc. That was always an option for Pro, but Pro didn't do it. I do not understand why Pro claims to believe that he had no choice but to "read and agree" the definitions from round 1. I do not understand where this coming from. I don't get it. Curiously, it's difficult to see how Pro even has a case if he acknowledges and accepts the round 1 definitions as true, most of which define murder as unlawful and/or criminal. In any case though, it is too late for Pro to make a new argument, as these are not permitted in the final round per the rules from round 1. Pro has failed to address the definitions. Pro has merely changed the subject to a false allegation of misconduct; Changing the subject is not convincing. Re: Collin's Definition When I spoke of this definition, I provided a reason as to why my interpretation should be favored over Pro's interpretation. I reiterate - My interpretation should be favored over Pro's because my interpretation was "most consistent with the meaning of 'murder' as described by dictionaries and statutes at large". (See prior round) Pro dropped this argument. Re: American Heritage Definition Pro has not addressed the fact that an abortion is, by and large, a valid excuse for killing under the law, and thus is not murder under the American Heritage definition. This doesn't miss Pro's point, as Pro's point was that an abortion is murder under the American Heritage definition. Pro changes the subject to the choice of law issue, and this was already addressed by me in the prior round. Re: Population Statistics Pro claims that I contradicted my own argument, but I did not. I was merely showing that if we accept population statistics as a relevant metric, then it is in my favor to do so, not Pro's. Pro has failed to address this point. Re: Choice of Law Pro claims that I am moving the goalposts here. Pro asserts that he if can show only a single case where abortion is murder, then he wins. Of course, if that were true, then I would have lost this debate before it even began because I introduced a case of an abortion that was murder in round 1. Pro's claim is false, and it is Pro who is the one who is trying to move the goal posts. To support my position, lets examine this statement: "Abortion is murder". Lets look at another statement similarly phrased: "Rodents are big". Now, rodents are mostly small mammals with robust bodies, short limbs and long tails. So, the claim that "rodents are big" is false because rodents are, for the most part, not big. But wait, consider the capybara, the largest rodent - That's a big rodent. So you see, Pro would have us believe that because of this single case of a big rodent, the statement that "rodents are big" suddenly becomes true. No, I'm afraid the statement doesn't become true because of a single case. We could consider the statement "water is cold"; Most water on earth is cold, but there is the warm water when I take a shower; "Pizza tastes good" - Most pizza tastes pretty good, but there is that slice of pizza that has been in a dumpster for 4 days; "Africans have white skin" - Most Africans do not have white skin, but there are some albinos running around - You get the idea. Pro can't show that "abortion is murder" is true merely by showing a single case or a handful of cases where abortion is murder. Pro's argument on this point is very weak. Abortion is, by and large, not murder. So, the claim that "abortion is murder" is not true. Re: Counting the countries Since Pro's population count argument has failed because his source supports my position instead of his on that issue, Pro attempts to change the relevant metric from population to the number of countries. Again, the emphasis on country counts is without any justification, as was Pro's emphasis on population statistics. Perhaps we should count every country as having outlawed abortion because some forms of abortion are illegal in every country (e.g. surreptitiously slipping a pregnant woman an abortion drug with the intent to induce an abortion). Anyway, Pro's argument doesn't have much weight here because the overwhelming majority of abortions are conducted legally. Furthermore, Pro is counting countries with minimal restrictions as countries where abortions are murder. This is not reasonable. Re: Fetuses as human for purposes of murder There's no point to bringing this up. Pro and I are generally in agreement that fetuses count for purposes of murder. Even one of the definitions I introduced counted fetuses as humans for purposes of murder. (California Penal Code § 187) Nowhere have I argued that abortion is not murder because fetuses aren't human. Rather, I have argued that abortion is not murder because the vast majority of abortions are lawful and all murder is unlawful as murder is a crime.