Abortion is Murder

== Opening Argument == 1) To quote my opponent, "This debate is necessar[il]y semantic." So let's start there. I generally agree with the presented definitions, and there are some key parts of them I wish to emphasize. For example, the American Heritage definition of murder begins, "The killing of another person without justification or excuse, ..." This does not require the killing to be unlawful in order to be considered murder. It does say "especially the crime..." but this does not mean a crime is necessary. Therefore, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, a murder need only be a killing without valid justification or excuse. Moving on to the Collins Dictionary, the definition reads: "the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another..." We must acknowledge the "or" here, which suggests that murder can be either unlawful/malicious OR premeditated killing. Since Con defines abortion as the deliberate [i.e., premeditated] termination of a human pregnancy, we can therefore accept that abortion qualifies as murder under the latter portion of the Collins murder definition. As we can see, killing does not necessarily have to be unlawful to qualify as murder. 2) Con has not specified which legal system we are operating under. So even with the (false) assumption that murder must be an unlawful killing, we are left asking "unlawful according to whom?" It is true, American law generally allows abortion, but the laws of other countries do not. "66 countries, [encompassing] 25.64% of world's population" have laws that prohibit abortion outright or make only very rare exceptions [http://www.google.com...]. In fact, lest it be thought these countries are a mere minority, only "61 countries, [encompassing] 39.22% of the world's population" live in countries where abortion is permitted without significant restrictions [Ibid.] Furthermore, multiple religious laws prohibit abortion (this is common knowledge and in no need of a citation). So, we can clearly see that abortions are not, as my opponent claims, "by and large" legal killings sanctioned by the state. Con did conclude their opening argument by saying "the vast majority of abortions in the United States are performed legally" but they never limit our discussion only to the U.S. Since Con has failed to specify which legal system we are using, I can claim any one of the 66 nations that prohibit abortion and successfully meet all 4 of Con's "murder" definitions. 3) Abortion is the premeditated killing of a human by another human. In a way, Con has already conceded this by writing "an abortion is certainly a killing..." but I shall elaborate nonetheless: a. Science overwhelmingly confirms that the unborn, even at the earliest stage, are human. At the first moments of conception, the zygote has unique and completely human DNA. Humans have 46 chromosomes with DNA specific to the Homo Sapiens species. All 46 chromosomes, as well as the human specific DNA that comes with them, are present the moment the fertilized egg begins dividing. "The fertilized egg performs its first mitotic division. Each of the two new daughter cells contains the full species' genome and the entire genotype of the new individual, with half it's chromosomes inherited from each genetic parent." [http://classroom.synonym.com...] Even if an abortion happens just after pregnancy is usually detected (week 5), the "baby's brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to develop." [https://www.nlm.nih.gov...] By week 6, "Baby's heart continues to grow and now beats at a regular rhythm" [Ibid.]. The heart and spine of a fetus are not the organs of some separate sub-human species. They are genetically and fully Homo Sapien. There is not a single scientific argument to justify why a fetus is not a member of the human species. b. Federal Law - even U.S. Federal Law confirms that the unborn are both alive and human. The 2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA), Section 1841, says that any person who injures a child in utero can be punished as if they injured the mother herself, even if the offender acted unintentionally or had no knowledge she was pregnant. Furthermore, UVVA says, "As used in this section, the term 'child in utero' or 'child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." [https://www.congress.gov...]Incredibly, this means that if a pregnant woman on her way to the abortion clinic gets hit by a texting driver, survives, but loses the baby, then that driver can be charged with manslaughter. Yet, if the woman arrives safely at the abortion clinic, she can "lose" her baby in a perfectly legal and often celebrated procedure. This contradiction borders on insanity and cannot be justified with logic. == Closing == Abortion kills a living member of the human species. Since abortion is also a deliberate act (according to R1 definitions) abortion is therefore the premeditated killing of one human being by another. This meets criteria for murder definition #3, therefore, abortion is murder. Looking forward to Round 2.