Thank you to Intelligence_06 for accepting this debate.
This is a debate on whether abortion is murder. In accordance with the debate description, I must argue that abortion is murder. Whereas CON must argue that abortion is not murder.
To accomplish this, I shall first prove a fetus, which is defined in the description as:
"an unborn vertebrate that follows the developmental plan of its kind."
is a human being. Once this is completed, then I shall prove that it is alive. Because of the utmost importance of this issue, scholarly resources, and not low brow publications like "CNN" or "Fox News" or pop science journalism websites like "LiveScience" shall be used, unless providing direct quotes from scientists, medical doctors, or other experts.
Once I prove that a human life begins at conception, then it is an automatic conclusion that abortion is murder because getting an abortion requires one to premeditate the process.
This will be proven through explaining from Planned Parenthood and the guidance of the World Health Organization's materials for abortion.
A1: HUMAN LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION, AND THIS IS SYNONYMOUS WITH A FETUS
That a fetus is a human being is not foreign to biologists. In fact, on the contrary, 96% of them say that human life begins at fertilization. [1]
So, to go against this medical fact is to go against the established scientific consensus that human life begins at fertilization.
But let's break down precisely why it is medical and biological nonsense to declare that a fetus is not a living human being.
As the Encyclopedia & Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing & Allied Health states under the entry for "fertilization":
"in human reproduction, the process by which the male’s sperm unites with the female’s oocyte, creating a new life." [2]
So, as we can see here, the second a sperm unites with an oocyte, a new human life is created.
But this is further confirmed with the fact that all four biological markers of life are present the second fertilization happens. [3]
Additionally, the human being's full genetic material is present at fertilization, as the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care notes in their primer on fertilization and early fetal development that was republished on the NIH's medical information website that:
"The first cell of a new human being forms during fertilization when an egg cell (from the mother) combines with a sperm cell (from the father). This cell has the genetic information that includes the encoded building instructions for the whole body." [4]
So it is apparent from the scientific literature that a human life begins at fertilization, meaning that a fetus is a living human being. In fact, the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care even goes on to state:
"As the growing baby develops in the womb, cells continue dividing, leading to the formation of various types of cells, tissues and organs. Even though the cells in different types of tissue (e.g. muscle cells and liver cells) carry out very different tasks, they still contain the same genetic information that was passed on from the very first cell." [4]
As if there was any question at all, the primer document explicitly calls the fetus a baby and states it is growing and developing in the womb.
The science is settled, a fetus is a living human being whose life begins at conception. Genetically, biologically, and developmentally, a fetus is alive and human.
A2: ABORTION MURDERS A FETUS
Now that the scientific consensus has been shown to prove that a fetus is a living human being, it shall be proven that abortion murders this living human being.
To get an abortion, one must speak with a health care professional. As Planned Parenthood, the premier abortion provider worldwide, states on their website:
"Laws vary by state, but here are the things you should consider:
Learn about the laws in your state. Laws about abortion vary by state, including whether or not it’s legal and how late into pregnancy you can get one. You may need to travel to another state for care.
Find out if there’s a waiting period in your state. Some states have waiting periods, which means having an appointment and then waiting 1-3 days before having your abortion.
If you’re under 18, find out if you need parental consent. Some states require people under 18 to get parental consent or notify a parent. You can get around this with a judicial bypass." [5]
So, it is clear from how an abortion is carried out, that it must be a premeditated action. This is similar to most of the rest of the developed world. As the World Health Organization's Abortion Guidelines website states:
"As illustrated above, this guideline is centred on the values and preferences of abortion seekers, and considers them as active participants in as well as beneficiaries of health services." [6]
So for an abortion to take place, a pregnant woman MUST participate. This means they must be cognizant and aware of what they are doing and make a willful decision to go through with it.
In accordance with the debate description, I shall define premeditated from Merriam-Webster's online dictionary:
"characterized by fully conscious willful intent and a measure of forethought and planning" [7]
Recall that Planned Parenthood's website tells pregnant women to plan their visit and figure out the logistics of their abortion.
Further, recall that the World Health Organization calls women who receive abortions "active participants" in the abortion process.
In both instances, forethought and planning are mandatory for the abortion to happen. There is no way a woman can receive an accidental abortion. It requires participation.
Therefore, let's recall the definition of murder from the debate description:
"premeditated killing of a human being."
From here, it is conclusively proven that abortion is murder. It is a premeditated killing of a living human being.
The scientific consensus shows that abortion kills the fetus. [10] [11] Even abortionists know this.
Faye Wattleton, the longest-serving president of Planned Parenthood, stated in an interview:
"I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don’t know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus." [8]
Moreover, medical doctors have expressed the same sentiment:
"I have angry feelings at myself for feeling good about grasping the calvaria [head], for feeling good about doing a technically good procedure that destroys a fetus, kills a baby." [9]
The scientific consensus is that a fetus is a living human being from the moment of fertilization. Multiple scholarly sources and the consensus of Biologists attest to this fact. A fetus has all the biological markers of life, fully-human DNA, and begins as fertilization.
To perform an abortion, the woman must premeditate the actions. She must plan her abortion ahead of time. This is apparent from the literature from Planned Parenthood and the guidelines of the World Health Organization.
The scientific consensus has also shown that abortion causes the death of the fetus, meaning, therefore, that abortion is murder, since it is a premeditated killing of a human being.
SOURCES:
[2] Entry: “fertilization.” Encyclopedia & Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing & Allied Health (7th edition). Edited by Benjamin Frank Miller. W. B. Saunders, 2003
[8] Faye Wattleton, "Speaking Frankly," Ms., May / June 1997, Volume VII, Number 6, 67.
[9] Diane M. Gianelli, "Abortion Providers Share Inner Conflicts," American Medical News, July 12, 1993
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.