Abortion is Murder

== Rebuttals == 1) New Definitions Disappointingly, Con has attempted to evade my opening argument by introducing new definitions. This is the weakest form of argument and appears to be a move of desperation. It is also poor conduct - definitions are presented in the first round so both participants can read and agree to them. Introducing new definitions in subsequent rounds deprives the opponent of this opportunity. I do not agree to these new definitions, and the voters shouldn't either. I will continue to operate under the definitions agreed to in Round 1. 2) Collins Definition The best defense my opponent has here is to admit the Collins definition is "ambiguous" and could be interpreted two ways. Con then urges voters to accept their interpretation and reject mine. This is called a Special Pleading fallacy. If the definition is ambiguous (as Con admits) and can be interpreted two ways, then my interpretation is just as valid as my opponent's. As such, my claim that the Collins definition allows murder to be understood as a lawful but premeditated killing stands. 3) American Heritage Definition Con says that an abortion is an excuse to kill another person, thereby exempting it from this definition. This misses my main point, which was that American Heritage gives us another example of how murder can be defined without requiring an unlawful killing. Even so, Con still runs into the problematic question of "unlawful according to whom?" According to my source, abortion in Egypt would not be a valid excuse to kill, and therefore would qualify as murder. This brings me to my next point.... 4) Population Statistics Here my opponent contradicts their own argument. In the first paragraph, Con notes that since my source says 60% of the world's population lives in countries where abortion is legal, it therefore supports their position. But, in the very next paragraph, Con dismisses percentages of human populations as "arbitrary." If this is true, then Con's initial rebuttal is therefore arbitrary and can be ignored. I chose not only percentages of human populations, but also numbers of countries that outlaw abortion. My original argument reads: "'66 countries, [encompassing] 25.64% of world's population' have laws that prohibit abortion outright or make only very rare exceptions." I chose this because Con is placing such a large emphasis on whether abortions are lawful killings. Obviously, nations make the laws, so it makes perfect sense to examine countries and their legal systems. This is, therefore, my justification for using countries and population percentages. 5) Choice of Law Con attempts to move the goalposts here by saying I must now show how abortion is murder "for the most part." This was not the original premise. The premise reads very plainly: "Abortion is Murder" which technically means if I can show just one case where that's true, I win. But I can show much more than one case. Abortion is illegal in 66 countries and partially illegal in 72 other countries according to my Round 1 source. That's a grand total of 138 countries, which means we have 138 cases where abortion would be considered an unlawful killing, which means we have 138 different examples of abortion being murder. This does not even count various religions laws that prohibit abortion. This is more than enough evidence to satisfy the debate premise. 6) Con accepts a fetus is a human life, so there is nothing more to say on this point. Due to the failure of Con's rebuttals, my argument remains valid: Abortion is the premeditated, and in many cases unlawful, killing of one human being by another. Therefore, abortion is murder.