Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

Alright, since you insist on continuing to argue, and I hate to drop an argument when my opponent doesn't want to, I will oblige.I will take it one step at a time. Before I do anything else, I want to clear up two issues that have been muddying the waters for several posts, and also put an end to an issue that I think has been resolved.--------------------------------Muddy Issue A: The Use of Non-Human ExamplesYou keep saying "we're only talking about humans here, so stop raising non-human examples", even though I mentioned earlier that I'm supposed to raise non-human examples. But since you didn't catch my meaning, I will explain in more detail:(1) There is a category of things called "human beings".(3) Some clear examples of human beings are human children and human adults.(4) Some clear examples of non-human beings are giraffes, cats, spiders, bacteria, arms, kidneys, and fingernails.(5) There is a lot of dispute over whether or not "foetus" fits into the human being category.(6) Our current debate concerns whether or not "foetus" fits into the human being category. You say that it does. I say that it doesn't.(7) In order to figure out whether it fits into the human being category, or into some non-human being category, we need to look at the big picture: look at things that are human beings, and look at things that are not human beings, and see where foetuses go. Let's use an analogy: imagine a suspect is on trial for robbery. The trial would consist of looking at evidence that he did commit a robbery, and looking at evidence that he did not commit a robbery, and seeing which side is more convincing.(8) I think that foetuses are not human beings, and I raise examples of things that are clearly not human beings to support my argument.(9) You are trying to restrict the examples we examine to things that are clearly human beings. This would make the argument skewed in your favour. Let's use the trial example again. It's like saying that the only evidence anyone is allowed to present is evidence that makes the suspect look guilty.(10) Think of me as the defence lawyer in that trial. What evidence would I be presenting: evidence that makes my client look innocent, or look guilty? Obviously I'm trying to get him off the hook, so I will make him look innocent. You, as the Crown prosecutor, will be trying to make him look guilty. Both types of evidence have to be allowed at the trial, or else the trial would be biased.Now do you see why I'm presenting non-human being examples while you're presenting human being examples? And do you see why it is relevant for me to present non-human being examples?--------------------------------Muddy Issue B: Murder vs KillingAnother issue that is impeding our debate is the question of whether we're discussing a legal issue, or a moral issue. You claim that I am arguing about the law, when you're arguing about morality.That is not the case. I'm not arguing about the law. I'm not arguing about whether it's legal in this country or that country to have an abortion. And I'm not arguing about whether abortion should be legalised or banned.I'm arguing over whether or not abortion is allowable by moral standards, just like you are.The only reason "law" ever came into this dispute was that you introduced it in. You said, many posts ago: "No matter how you look at it abortion is murder."Murder is a legal term describing a criminal offence. It means (more or less - the definition varies by country) the intentional or reckless killing of a human being. There are three parts to this: (1) it has to be intentional or reckless, (2) it has to be a killing and not just injuring, (3) the victim has to be a human being.But I know that you raised "murder" to make a point about morality, not about law. You used the word murder because you think that killing a foetus is a moral violation. The word "murder" intrinsically suggests moral wrongness.Obviously I disagree - I do not think that killing a foetus is a moral violation. Hence I said that killing a foetus is not murder. I'm not saying this because the laws of some random country says it isn't, but because I think that abortion is not a moral violation.And my argument was that it's not immoral because the foetus doesn't fit into the category of "human being", which is one of the requirements for the definition of murder, whether you take it to be a moral term or a legal term.To disallow me from differentiating between murder (which is morally wrong) and killing (which is not always morally wrong), as you attempted to in your last post, would be to say: "I declare that abortion is morally wrong. Now that this is figured out, let's debate about whether or not it's morally wrong."Compare that to the people at the robbery trial saying: "I declare that the defendant is guilty. Now that this is figured out, let's debate about whether or not he's guilty."Do you now see how ridiculous it would be to define abortion as murder, and then not allow me to argue that it isn't?I repeat once more: I'm not talking about laws. I'm not talking about what's a crime and what isn't. I'm not talking about who is a legally recognised person and who isn't. I'm not talking about who's a citizen and who isn't.I'm talking about whether or not abortion is immoral (morally wrong). And in order to do that, I have to argue that murder and killing are not the same thing.--------------------------------Resolved (?) Issue: English AbilityIf you still think that my English skill portrays me as "severely undereducated" compared to your skill, please provide further argument to that effect. But it appears in your last post that you no longer believe this, since you replied to my challenges on language without accusing me of having very low language ability.If you have changed your mind about one of the claims you made earlier, basic debating standards states that you should retract this claim - i.e. say that you've changed your mind.Retracting a claim doesn't mean you've "lost" the debate. It only means there's one branch of the debate that you don't want to pursue any longer. It also means that you are an honest debater, willing to fully explain what your opinions are at any point of the debate, rather than sweeping inconvenient ones under the carpet.So will you retract the claim that my English ability suggests a severe lack of education, or will you maintain this claim and provide suitable arguments for it?--------------------------------There are many more points I would make (like the issue of imaginary lines, what I think is or isn't personhood, and also the issues that I haven't addressed in your second-to-last post), but I want to leave them for later. I don't want to stuff too many ideas into a single post, or they will get mixed up again. So let's figure out whether or not we agree on these three issues. If we do, then I can proceed with the next part of my argument.