Most Abortion is Murder

Welcome to the final round! Let’s get right to it. Con categorizes their argument into 5 sections: Human names, menstruation, human consciousness, chemical reaction, and responses to questions. I will address each of these in the order they appear. 1. Human names: Con argues that a fetus qualifies as human life once the parents permanently name it. As an example, they note that names cannot be finalized until gender is detected. According to this logic, a mother who chooses not to find out the gender until birth delivers a non-human at 40 weeks, while a mother who chooses to find out at 20 weeks carries a human for 20 more (assuming a 40 week pregnancy, of course). This makes no sense. This argument incorrectly assumes that an embryo remains genderless until our current level of technology allows us to detect it. In most cases, gender is determined by the cells’ possession of an XX or XY chromosomal pairing. This pairing happens at conception. So, the cells possess gender immediately, we just can’t detect it until later. Our technological limitations for detecting gender do not indicate its non-existence. Second, for something to be considered human life it must be somehow distinguishable from other life forms. I propose this distinction is made by the presence of human DNA and 46 chromosomes. Con proposes that names accomplish this distinction. However, we also give other life forms human names. A fish can be named Larry. A dog can be named Richard. This undoubtedly disqualifies the premise that names distinguish human life from other life forms. Finally, we must consider people who don’t have a known name, or who choose to change their names. Are nameless orphans non-human until someone finds them and names them? If people change their name, was their existence under the former name a non-human existence since the name was not permanent? Surely not. I believe this more than disqualifies Con’s first argument. 2. Menstruation: Con argues that if human life beings at conception, then menstruation must qualify as murder. Even if it did, this does nothing for Con’s case because it’s not abortion. It is miscarriage. Abortion is the INTENTIONAL termination of a pregnancy, and miscarriage is not intentional (if a woman intentionally forces a miscarriage, then it qualifies as abortion). However, miscarriage is not murder either because murder also involves intentionality. Therefore, unintended miscarriage is neither abortion nor murder. Nothing more needs to be said on this point. 3. Human consciousness: In this argument, Con throws around a term that is impossibly complex. Entire books can (and have) been written attempting to define human consciousness - assuming it even exists at all. But, since my opponent offers it I must still try to refute it. Con says (quote), “Consciousness requires memory. ” They posit that no one remembers being in the womb, therefore, we were not conscious beings in the womb. They go on to make the astounding claim that “human life only begins when you have your first memory. ” Assuming this is true, then I ask if anyone remembers having their umbilical cord cut, or taking their first breath? The earliest memories I have are maybe from age 3 or 4, possibly later. So was I not human until age 3? Was I not human if I have no memory of taking my first breath? This means intentionally stabbing a newborn is not murder, which is certainly not true. Even if we play a very generous devil’s advocate, and assume consciousness does require memory, there are still problems Con must deal with. For example, let’s say a 40 year old man comes out of a 3 year coma with complete amnesia and remembers nothing of his previous life. Did he then lose his humanity between year 1 and year 37? At the risk of indulging in Ad Hominem, this is a ridiculous claim. Con commits the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent with this argument. Con says: If a being has memory, then it has human consciousness. Fetuses have no memory, therefore they have no human consciousness. I will demonstrate why this is a fallacy. Consider the claim: If bacteria enter my body, I will get sick. Bacteria did not enter my body, therefore I will not get sick. But, you could still get sick from a virus or poison. Denying the premise does not prove the conclusion. 4. Fertilization as a chemical reaction: This point is a combination of previous arguments presented by Con. Con asks if we consider sperm or egg cells as human life. I already answered this point in the previous round. Sperm cells have 23 chromosomes, eggs have 23 chromosomes. Humans have 46 chromosomes. Sperm and egg cells are not human life, so ejaculation or menstruation is not murder. Confusingly, my opponent goes on to say “neither of these cells alone is a human life,” so they negate their own argument in the previous two sentences. Con then refutes their own menstruation argument by writing, “telling females not to menstruate is futile. ” This is an admission that menstruation cannot be controlled and therefore cannot be intentional, which means it is not murder or abortion. 5: Responses to questions: I will only address one because the rest are repetitive. Con says in response to comparing a fully developed human to a 6 year old that they “prefer to say ‘human or non-human. ” This digs my opponent an even deeper hole, because now they are not calling the 6 year old non-human. Unless, of course, Con either shows that a 6 year old is fully developed or withdraws their argument that the level of development indicates human life. In conclusion, I must point out that my opponent has never challenged or even referenced my definition of human life from Round 2. In case it was missed, I will present it again: "A collection of living cells containing all 46 human chromosomes and complete human DNA that, if kept alive and healthy, will eventually develop into a mature human capable of reproducing with other humans. ” I submit that my case for human life beginning at conception is much stronger than my opponent’s case that it does not. As a result, intentionally ending a pregnancy after conception qualifies as murder.