IID: Abortion Is Murder

Given that we clearly don't see eye to eye on this, I'll leave it, here. I'm interested to see how this debate will play out.

"No. A tadpole is a tadpole."

Tadpoles are just baby frogs - I don't see how anyone can object to that.

"Yes, but the subject focuses on abortion, which logically indicates that the fetuses to which you refer are human fetuses."

Only if you presuppose a fetus is a human being.

"That's your presupposition."

Once again, it is not an assumption. A fetus's being human is tautologically true. They are categorized as the species known as homo sapien, a.k.a. human being, as much as you or I.

"However, many would argue that a human doesn't start as a human."

And "many" would be inferring a logical absurdity.

"They argue a human isn't a human until birth when it is fully developed."

And this nothing more than an arbitrary division. Birth does not speciate homo sapiens. Not to mention, it doesn't fully develop upon birth, making the consideration of the stages of human development as discrete species completely absurd.

"This is bullshit, but it has been argued. And it can he argued using this definition. I did this on purpose."

Exactly. That means your definitions are entertaining the prospect of bullshit contentions. The only people who would endorse those contentions are those who subscribe to bullshit.

"You are importing your presuppositions onto the statement."

Once again, it's not a presupposition. I haven't presented an inductive argument; just a tautological truth.

"The statement says "developmental plan of its kind." Which means it follows the developmental plan. It doesn't state "human development." Which is altogether a different meaning.

It is up to the debater to prove this developmental plan is ALWAYS human life, and does not TURN INTO human life later"

Yes, but the subject focuses on abortion, which logically indicates that the fetuses to which you refer are human fetuses. Your definitions place the onus on the contention to substantiate/prove a logical absurdity. And this just hearkens back to my point: the only recourse the contention has, which does not result in either bullshit or absurdity, is to call into dispute the fetus's life given that disputing its humanity will inevitably and necessarily result bullshit/absurd inferences.

"like with a tadpole turning into a frog"

Not the same thing; tadpoles experience metamorphosis which doesn't necessarily depend on their being gestated; fetuses, like other human beings, experience growth. The best way to illustrate this is to consider an infant the day before its born--nothing really changes other than its location.

No. A tadpole is a tadpole.

That's your presupposition. Which I agree with. However, many would argue that a human doesn't start as a human. And they look at the same developmental process. They argue a human isn't a human until birth when it is fully developed. This is bullshit, but it has been argued. And it can he argued using this definition. I did this on purpose.

You are importing your presuppositions onto the statement. The statement says "developmental plan of its kind." Which means it follows the developmental plan. It doesn't state "human development." Which is altogether a different meaning.

It is up to the debater to prove this developmental plan is ALWAYS human life, and does not TURN INTO human life later, like with a tadpole turning into a frog

But a tadpole is a frog...

Because human development isn't subject to metamorphosis, while a Frog's development is. The analogy isn't apropos.

Do frogs have a developmental plan of its kind?

But we certainly don't call a tadpole a frog.

Except it is impossible for the contender to prove the opposite. You defined a fetus as "an unborn vertebrate that follows the developmental plan of its kind." What is its "kind"? Who performs abortions? Non-humans? Unless the scope of this subject includes for pubescent and post-pubescent non-human vertebrates performing abortions, which is absurd, then the contender has no recourse but to challenge the concept of a fetus's possessing "life." It would be like demanding a contender to disprove that you or I are human; it's not about Intelligence "winning" (no pun intended.) The extension of an argument seeking to disprove the fetus's humanity will result only in a logical absurdity.

Did I define fetus or not?

I set it up such that it is up to the most convincing argument to prove whether a fetus is a human. That is part of this debate. I win if I can convince the voters that a baby is a human being who is alive. Intelligence wins if he can prove the opposite.

If I were to create a debate proposing, "O.J. Simpson Did Not Murder Nicole Simpson," using your definitions, would my not pointing out or stipulating that Nicole Simpson was in fact a human being provide mitigation, or can her having been a human being be implicitly and generally understood? The fetus is human; the fetus has to be human: it has a human's genome, and it has human parents. What is there to dispute in that context? This leaves only the fetus's "life" to be called into question. And in my opinion, this will lead only to regressive arguments over arbitrary descriptions and philosophical abstracts.

Okay.

I would ignore people like the person you are in a back and forth with, because it seems like he is just failing to understand what you are saying.

I'm strictly speaking to the definitions I've written here. Nothing in them states the fetus is alive or even a human.

I was responding to Austin, as intended.

"Quite the opposite actually. Unlike those "traditional debaters" who have the arrogance to tell me what the topic is "really about" without having evidence on the topic itself to back it up, I always debate exactly the topic, always."

Is there something you'd like to state to me directly? You take issue with my response after engaging me on the subject?

It's not a presupposition, which would denote assumption. The fetus's being human is not an assumption. It's true by definition. The same metrics that determine your or my being human are the same metrics that determine the fetus's humanity. One could also consider the absurdity of human beings being the only species to gestate a species other than its own.

Quite the opposite actually. Unlike those "traditional debaters" who have the arrogance to tell me what the topic is "really about" without having evidence on the topic itself to back it up, I always debate exactly the topic, always.

"the fetus's being human is tautologically true"

Only on a presupposition. You are making a presupposition.

You stated it yourself here:

"Just so it's clear. Nothing in the definitions say:
1. That the fetus is a human being
2. That it is alive in the womb.

So if you still believe this debate is too hard to win, then it really shows that, ultimately, you agree that abortion is murder.

This should be a pretty straightforward debate if you honestly think the fetus isn't a human being or alive. But since nobody has dared to take this one, it seems apparent that I have won the debate before even starting."

that the contender's recourse is simple if he/she can dispute the fetus's humanity and/or the fetus's being alive. The fetus's humanity isn't up for debate since the fetus's being human is tautologically true. That leaves only its "life," a nebulous philosophical abstract, being called into dispute, resulting in the inevitable arbitrary divisions. This shouldn't be the contender's only recourse, but your stipulated definitions make it that way. I'll be interested to see how Intelligence_06's arguments circumvent your definitions.

Great to debate you again. Thanks for accepting.

Are you going to aim for Derail Topic Any%?

Intelligence is right. There are multiple routes as CON.

"if and only if the fetus's life is called into dispute"

Discredit me if you want, but oh well that is definitely not the "only" way.