Abortion is injustice and morally wrong,

I really don"t know what to say" for my opponent has completely forfeited their argument and has now went on an emotional crusade, I was sure we were having a debate not a who can appeal to emotion more, but I cannot say I am surprised for my opponent has been telegraphing this for a while. Debate Topic: "Abortion is injustice and morally wrong" This is the debate topic pretty clear and strait forward, other than definitions which I would have hoped my opponent to at least try to establish their definitions so I and the rest of the readers don"t have to play the guessing game. So I try to clarify the topic and post some definitions that I assume to be the same as my opponent. As anyone can see the word "injustice has two definitions that could have applied. Unlawful and unfair, at first it may seem my opponent would be leaning to the unfair notion until this, "My contentions are simple: that abortion is a form of murder and is morally, spiritually,and physically wrong." Murder is a LEGAL term it"s not a word for just killing it is defined as, Murder: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought http://www.merriam-webster.com... This still reinforces the definition I have already provided. This is the Basic definition, this is literally what you will get when you type it in google, and though people may consider killing and murder to be swap-able this is not the case. The moment my opponent placed the term "injustice" followed by murder, the only definitions we can now follow are legal definitions. Injustice meaning unlawful, murder meaning unlawful killing, applied to Abortion. The topic, as my opponent has set it up as, could be read like so "Abortion is Illegal and Immoral" My opponent could have tried to clarify themselves in round 2 providing their definitions and finally clearing their vague interpretation of the topic. This was not the case. Round 3 was when we finally see that pro has now abandon their statement from round 1, "Con, would you be alright with me switching the word 'murder' to 'kill'?" Attempts to re-clarify how to define murder and seeing how murder is indeed a legal term has now back away from his opening statement, "My contentions are simple: that abortion is a form of murder and is morally, spiritually,and physically wrong." To, " "Abortion is injustice and morally wrong." I stated that abortion is murder/killing" Since the beginning I have had how I would be defining murder up since round 1, my opponent took the time to attempt to clarify about legality, yet still did not clarify their meaning of murder until round 3 which I could only assume is due to their inability to attempt a defense of their opening statement, and now wishes to change their contention to be a more defend-able and unchained to the term known as law. In fact we can see at the end of round 2 my opponent still clung to the term Murder, though they have now refer to it as being "unnecessary murder". My opponent has also conceded, "Re: "My opponent: "Do you believe that those who do abortions do it with malice?" No"" Then it cannot be murder, therefore making your statement," that abortion is a form of murder" incorrect. My opponent up till round 3 has based their argument that abortion is injustice for it is murder, now they agree that abortions are not done with malice therefor making abortion not murder. Which completely collapses their argument that abortion is injustice for it is murder as stated from the first round. "Re: "Murder is an "unlawful" killing of a person, that is the definition, you claim it is an injustice for it is murder..." I believe abortion should be unlawful/illegal." If you wanted to try to argue it being "unfair" then phrasing the topic as "Abortion should be illegal for it is immoral", "Abortion should be an injustice for it is morally wrong", "Abortion is Unfair and immoral", etc" Would have been better... Again, my opponent sees how their argument has completely collapsed due to ignorance on how they have phrased the topic and neglected to provide any definitions to attempt to clarify what they mean, though they due clarify one thing in round 1, "My contentions are simple: that abortion is a form of murder and is morally, spiritually,and physically wrong." I have given 6 potential days for my opponent to try to clarify themselves in the first 2 rounds not including the time I waited to see if they would change the way they have phrased this debate or at least provide their own definitions. But my opponent continued, even with my established definitions since they never provided their own. Therefor we must conclude Abortion is legal as it presently exists and my opponent knows this and falls to the emotional appeal and his morality. As for morality, it varies too much to be used effectively someone"s morality will be different from your own that just how it is. Though my opponent does provide us a glimpse of how in America and around the world people accept abortions which shows that abortion may indeed have a moral stand in this debate. Anyways I have fulfilled my BoP as stated and agreed by my opponent from round 1, "I'm assuming due to the phrasing of the topic "Abortion is injustice and morally wrong" if I show that it is just by legal standards and/or morally sound that I uphold my BoP." My opponent: "You are correct in saying that "if you show abortion is just by legal standards and morally sound than you uphold your BoP." Though my opponent goes on say legal standard must be settled upon, I can only conclude my opponent is referring to the legality of abortion is America due to a later statement, which indeed has Abortion being legal. Concluding that abortion is indeed legal therefor not an injustice/murder. I could push that it is moral too due to a statement made by my opponent, "It is relevant to this debate because, quite obviously, abortion is favored by the majority of people (not only in America, but in the world), and I believe that that is one of the big reasons that it is legal (concerning the U.S.A)." Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Favor: 1. an attitude of approval or liking. (google) 2. approval, support, or popularity (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) If people accept it as being good then in can be considered moral, and since morality comes in all shapes and sizes we could conclude that abortion, due to large group(s) of people accepting it as good, can be considered moral. Again upholding my BoP Which leaves one solution to the problem, "If you don"t like Abortion, then don"t have one!" "Anonymous (This is actually not a quote I have made) ------------------------------------------------- I do however have some advice to my opponent, 1. When making the foundation of a debate try to define all words that have multiple definitions. 2. When your opponent gives definitions read over them and see if you agree with them, if not provide your own. 3. When debating its good to know the definitions of the words your going to use often, if they mean something else in slang terms then what they mean in definition, you should define it. 4. Its always good to establish the rules of each round. 5. Don't copy and not quote rebuttals if your going to use it as your own opening arguments... It is indeed rude and plagiarism... P.S. If you didn't understand what my rant in that forum was about, it was about the double standard exercised in modern times when looking at children, and how illegalizing abortion will cause a severe double standard, for once you able rights to a fetus, the rights themselves must be applied to all ages, which so happens to not currently be applied to children. Reason why I call it slavery constantly in my responses in that forum, because by definition it is.