Abortion is Murder

New Definitions - In support of my position, I would ask that the voters weigh and consider the following definitions for "murder" - "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought" (California Penal Code § 187; http://goo.gl... ) "Murder is a planned, illegal form of taking someone's life. If you read a law book, you'll see how complicated murder can be." https://goo.gl... "the crime of intentionally killing a person" http://goo.gl... "Murder is defined as the illegal, pre-planned killing of one person by another" http://goo.gl... "the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)." http://goo.gl... "unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being" http://goo.gl... "the deliberate and illegal killing of a person." http://goo.gl... "The act of unlawfully killing a human being with premeditated malice" http://goo.gl... "unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being" http://goo.gl... The totality of these definitions, along with the definitions introduced in the prior round, strongly suggest that murder, by definition, is an unlawful act. Ergo, a lawful act cannot be a murder. A person who lawfully kills in self defense is not a murderer because the killing was lawful; A soldier lawfully kills in military combat is not a murderer; A man who lawfully executes a condemned prisoner is not a murderer; For the same reason, a pregnant woman and/or a doctor who lawfully aborts the pregnancy is not a murderer. Re: Collin's Definition My opponent has misinterpreted a grammatical ambiguity. My opponent focuses on this part of the Collin's definition for murder - "the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another" http://goo.gl... My opponent focuses on this part: "unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing" http://goo.gl... My opponent interprets this definition to mean that any killing is sufficient to constitute murder so long as it is either: 1. Unlawful and malicious; OR 2. Premeditated Perhaps my opponent's interpretation could be expressed this way: [unlawful and malicious] OR [premeditated] I doubt that this is how the authors of the definition intended for it to be interpreted. There is a more reasonable interpretation, which is this: Any killing is sufficient to constitute murder so long as it is either: 1. Unlawful and malicious; OR 2. Unlawful and premeditated This interpretation could be expressed this way: [unlawful] AND [malicious or premeditated] Although the text from Collin's itself is ambiguous as to which interpretation was intended, it is the latter of these interpretations which is most consistent with the meaning of "murder" as described by dictionaries and statutes at large; On that basis, I urge the voters to reject my opponent's interpretation and go with the one I offer here. Re: American Heritage Definition My opponent argues from the following definition - "The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting" https://goo.gl... My opponent argues that an abortion can be a murder under this definition, contending that an abortion is killing another person without justification or excuse. My opponent's argument ignores the fact that terminating a pregnancy is, by and large, a valid excuse. My opponent's own source indicates that "more than 60% of the world’s population lives in countries where induced abortion is permitted either for a wide range of reasons or without restriction as to reason." ( http://goo.gl... ) Re: Population Statistics My opponent quotes a report, but what my opponent neglected to mention was that the first statement from his source is that "more than 60% of the world’s population lives in countries where induced abortion is permitted either for a wide range of reasons or without restriction as to reason." ( http://goo.gl... ) Ergo, this source is not supportive of my opponent's position; Rather, it is supportive of mine. Furthermore, my opponent's emphasis on the percentage of the human population residing in jurisdictions where abortion is outlawed is arbitrary. Perhaps we should go with the percentage of square miles where abortion is murder under the law of the respective jurisdictions; Perhaps we should go with English speaking countries only, as this debate is about the meaning of an English word; Perhaps we should go with the total number of abortions which are legal as opposed to the total number of abortions which are illegal since this debate is about abortion in practice - Perhaps we should go with the United States only, as this is an American website and the users here are American for the most part - The point is that choosing any one of these metrics is equally as arbitrary as any other without good cause as to which one should be emphasized for purposes of this debate. My opponent hasn't presented any justification for using population percentages. Re: Choice of Law My opponent is correct when he asserts that abortion is murder under some law and not murder under other laws. However, looking at the totality of the laws in effect and the totality of abortions, abortion is, by and large, legal and is not murder. My position in this debate has been, and continues to be, that abortion can be murder depending on the circumstances, but for the most part abortion is not murder. Given that, it would be inaccurate to say that abortion is murder. Re: Fetuses as humans under the law for purposes of murder My argument considers fetuses to be people for purposes of murder, as do many laws. The contention that fetuses are not humans for purposes of murder is valid in some jurisdictions (e.g. Common law of England); However, this does not form the basis of my argument. I see no reason to dispute the point that fetuses are humans for purposes of murder, as I am generally in agreement with the notion except for a few exceptions which have a minimal impact.