Instigator / Pro
3
1589
rating
18
debates
69.44%
won
Topic
#4081
IID: Abortion Is Murder
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
0
1
After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
Intelligence_06
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description
STANCES:
PRO shall only argue that Abortion Is Murder
CON shall only argue that Abortion Is NOT Murder
* * *
DEFINITIONS:
All medical terms shall first be defined from Merriam Webster's Medical Dictionary, available here:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/medical
All legal terms shall first be defined from The Law's Legal Dictionary, available here:
https://dictionary.thelaw.com/
And if either Merriam Webster's Medical Dictionary or The Law's Legal Dictionary cannot provide a definition, then Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary available at merriam-webster.com will be used for all other words.
Specific definitions for debate:
Abortion: The premeditated and willful removal of a fetus by all causes other than any form of spontaneous miscarriage, birth, or delivery procedure. The Plan B pill does not count as a spontaneous miscarriage.
Murder: premeditated killing of a human being.
Killing: the act of making a living thing dead.
Fetus: an unborn vertebrate that follows the developmental plan of its kind.
* * *
RULES:
1. Burden of Proof is shared.
2. No Ignoratio Elenchis.
3. No trolls.
4. Forfeiting one round = auto-loss.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Thank you to Intelligence_06 for accepting this debate.
INTRODUCTION:
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]
CONCLUSION:
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
Con
#2
0. Regarding the Topic
Here are the definitions for "Abortion" and for "Murder", as outlined by Pro. I will accept them.
Abortion: The premeditated and willful removal of a fetus by all causes other than any form of spontaneous miscarriage, birth, or delivery procedure. The Plan B pill does not count as a spontaneous miscarriage.
Murder: premeditated killing of a human being.
Since "Abortion" and "Murder" are both terms representing an event or a class of events, meaning they are in fact nouns. The connecting term "is" ensures the pro-side claim would defend, which is the topic, "All cases that can be described as 'abortion' are also all applicable to be described as 'murder'". The "All cases" comes from the fact that Pro did not rule out any cases of "abortion" or "murder" that can be included by the definition entries.
As a result, all CON needs to do is to point out at least one class of existent/plausible scenarios that can be described as "abortion" and not "murder", to disprove the topic, or to prove "Abortion Is NOT Murder", which just means the two terms are not equivalent in the discussion of the cases, in which one type of counterexamples would suffice in exactly that.
1. Non-humans and Persistent life
Define "Fetus"
Fetus: an unborn vertebrate that follows the developmental plan of its kind.
In order for a fetus to...be a fetus, it must be within the development path of a vertebrate. Therefore, a fetus of a cat is a fetus, a fetus of a dog is a fetus, a fetus of a cow is a fetus, but earthworms do not have fetuses.
Restate the definition of "Abortion"
Abortion: The premeditated and willful removal of a fetus by all causes other than any form of spontaneous miscarriage...
The entirety of the entry would be too lengthy, so I will only cite the crucial part.
The removal of a fetus that will grow into any vertebrate according to the developental pattern, by ANY MEANS other than miscarriage and birth, is abortion. Any other means besides birth and miscarriage. Not only that, it did not state what the fetus is and where it is. Therefore, the cases below should all count as abortion.
- Removing a not-yet-mature fetus from a dead mother before the fetus is considered "alive" by any means and to artifically mature the fetus into a functioning individual
- A veterinian removing the unborn fetus of a cat and a dog, which are not human
- Taking the fertilized egg out of the womb, of any species of vertebrae, and ensure it can grow artificially and NOT die
- This is due to Pro saying:
- Once I prove that a human life begins at conception...
Therefore, Pro believes in that the fetus is created at conception.
Now that, since murder is defined as:
Murder: premeditated killing of a human being.
Therefore, abortions of non-human vertebraes are not murder. Now that, since the definition for "abortion" just stated the action needed to be "premeditated and willful" but did not say which party, therefore, a vet while knowing what he is doing, giving abortion to cats, counts as no murder.
Also, if the expulsion of a fetus, after it becomes a fetus(conception), can still persist on becoming living, although not in a womb, then nobody died, and there is no killing, let alone murder. According to Pro, who thinks a fetus is created at conception, taking out a fertilized egg, which is theoretically possible, would therefore be abortion, even if we let it live. Remember, abortion is only stated as the removal of a fetus, however, no death is involved within the definition, and an abortion does not cease being one if the fetus is still alive.
PRO:From here, it is conclusively proven that abortion is murder. It is a premeditated killing of a living human being.
Ok, but Pro gave no evidence as of yet that abortion kills the fetus.
2. "Removed"
In-vitro fertilization requires a fertilized egg to grow within an artificial environment, then removed, and placed into the womb of a woman. Since the definition for abortion said "removed", but did not state where it is being removed, technically, removing the fetus from an artificial environment and into the woman counts as removal.
What does this result in? Possibly a living baby afterwards. Not a murder.
Conclusion
- An abortion done to non-human vertebrae are NOT murder.
- Removing the egg from the woman and let it grow into a baby afterwards, which is theoretically possible, murders no one.
- Removing the egg from the artificial environment and into the woman's womb, which is practically possible, murders no one.
- The equivalence asserted in the topic is proven false. Vote CON!
Round 2
Pro
#3
R1 - Animals cannot have abortions
As CON already admits he agrees with, to have an abortion requires the premeditated and willful removal of a fetus, as per the definition:
Abortion: The premeditated and willful removal of a fetus by all causes other than any form of spontaneous miscarriage, birth, or delivery procedure. The Plan B pill does not count as a spontaneous miscarriage.
This would require the animal to premeditate and willfully remove the fetus from its body. Since animals cannot communicate consent, they therefore cannot have abortions.
R2 - IVF removal is a delivery procedure and not an abortion
CON inaccurately assumes the delivery procedure for IVF that removes the fetus from the artificial chamber counts as an abortion, but this is inaccurate. As Mayo Clinic states in the article CON cited:
During IVF, mature eggs are collected (retrieved) from ovaries and fertilized by sperm in a lab. Then the fertilized egg (embryo) or eggs (embryos) are transferred to a uterus. One full cycle of IVF takes about three weeks. Sometimes these steps are split into different parts and the process can take longer. [1]
Like pregnancy, IVF has a cycle and an incubation period, then the fetus is TRANSFERRED, not aborted, using a delivery procedure.
IVF delivery is very similar to early delivery of a premature fetus to prevent the death of the mother or child. The fetus is removed and then placed into a chamber that keeps the baby alive. IVF transferring is no different, it is delivering a fetus from the artificial chamber and placing it into a woman for incubation and growth until it is mature enough to be delivered again. In both cases this is a delivery procedure and therefore not an abortion.
This means an IVF transfer is not an abortion, since delivery procedures do not count for abortions.
R3 - CON dropped Most of PRO'S Round One arguments
Instead of responding to my arguments, CON dropped everything except for agreeing with PRO that human life begins at conception, and that PRO affirmed the premeditated removal of the human being is abortion and therefore murder.
CON also ignored the evidence PRO cited to defend his case that abortion is premeditated, including medical procedures from the World Health Organization, which called abortion receivers "active participants," [2] and the state guidance that requires planning appointments, deciding on an abortion center, and many other decisions [3] That therefore count as willful and premeditated. It requires active participation from the mothers involved.
Further contrary to CON's assertions, PRO cited two peer-reviewed studies and the testimony of a medical doctor to establish that abortion murders a fetus.
CONCLUSION
CON flagrantly ignored the debate definition and made arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic. I implore voters to remember rule #2, "no Ignoratio Elenchis", when casting their vote.
CON deliberately misinterpreted abortion to mean no consent is required, and that delivery procedures are also abortions, like in the case of IVF delivery procedures, despite the debate description clearly leaving those out of consideration for abortions.
CON also inaccurately claimed PRO cited no evidence that abortion murders a fetus or that it is a premeditated decision. The testimonies of medical professionals, internationally accepted and established medical authorities, and multiple state laws in the United States clearly and flagrantly disagree with CON's unusual assessment that there is no evidence abortions murder a fetus.
SOURCES:
Con
#4
I apologize for a late response, well, because I have lost passion for this site due to there being not even two appropriate locations for me to open my laptop and type for an hour in the short term.
1. Premedidated
Restate the definition:
Abortion: The premeditated and willful removal of a fetus by all causes other than any form of spontaneous miscarriage, birth, or delivery procedure. The Plan B pill does not count as a spontaneous miscarriage.
PRO did not say which party involved must be premeditated, so in all seriousness, any participant being consciously doing work directly contributing to abortion would therefore count within this definition.
This would require the animal to premeditate and willfully remove the fetus from its body. Since animals cannot communicate consent, they therefore cannot have abortions.
But the vets doing so are premeditated within this action. Without further clarification on the definition, which is basically impossible after the debate started, only a condition without modifiers of "Premeditated" cannot properly rule out animal abortions as long as the vet is consciously doing this voluntarily.
This is the only rebuttal PRO gave within this section, no further specification on definitions. I will consider this a concession until objections are put forth.
2. Problem of Inheritance
There are failed abortions where the fetus is not being killed.
This is obviously not a delivery procedure, as the normal "abortion procedure" is being performed instead.
If we take out the fetus purposefully as soon as it can survive outside the womb, then kill it, then yes, abortion is involved.
In conclusion: If the fetus is entirely taken out, it is entirely possible that it is still alive even if out of the womb. If we dip the now-"born" fetus into concentrated hydrochloric acid(not recommended) to ensure it is entirely dead when it isn't entirely dead out of the womb, what killed it? Well, given the problem of inheritence, since the removal of the fetus does not directly cause the death of the fetus, it couldn't be said that abortion is murder.
Problem of Inheritance
I made a chair today, my mom gave birth to me, my grandma gave birth to my mother, my great-grandma gave birth to my grandma. Therefore, if results are inherited, it would mean that my great-grandma made a chair in 2023, even though she passed away before the year 2023. The claim of that my grandma made the chair is absurd, so is the problem presented here. Does abortion the procedure itself definitely kill the fetus? Does it?
If the fetus is not killed by merely the removal of the fetus from the womb, then it cannot be said that abortion is murder in these cases, even if we accept that the fetus is a person, since the results of an action cannot be inherited back to the action that caused that action. In the problem I gave above, dipping the fetus into HCl is killing, abortion is not. If inheriting one place back is acceptable, then recursion could be applied, in which the results of this action can be passed back to the action that caused it, and the action that caused that action, and so on. What would we get? We would get such as "Conception is murder". That is absurd.
Conclusion: Because in cases, even if the fetus is made dead, what killed it is not abortion itself, therefore to say "abortion is murder" simply isn't correct.
3. Removal
We could just assume that the "removal" is from the womb to outside, because that is usually what a fetus goes through in many abortion examples. However, PRO gave no clarification for "removal".
In all seriousness, removing the fetus from a test tube to another test tube does count as abortion if it isn't a delivery procedure. Looking at the set of definitions, as long as the fetus is not killed by transferring itself, any movement of a fetus via someone who knows what they are doing from point A to point B is abortion without murder, regardless of what the points A and B are.
In fact, since a fetus occupies space, any displacement with the mover being conscious would therefore be removal from the past point. You can figure out the rest, but I will give a hint: It aligns with the last 2 paragraphs.
4. Alien
Definition for "Human Being":
: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : a person : MAN sense 1c—usually plural
Suppose there exists an alien with every part working like us, with tangible intelligence and the anatomical basis to give abortions, but has reproductive barrier with humans, is that alien a human? The answer is simply no. This entry of "Human" is used because of course, only homo sapiens are granted legal status concerning such as murder, manslaughter, etc.
For the abortions given by such beings, they obviously don't count as murder according to definitions, because only human fetuses are included. What is also peculiar is that the existence of such beings cannot be entirely dismissed theoretically. If Russell cannot disprove a floating teapot in space, no one can disprove such beings.
To draw absolute equivalence(There is no "on balance" on the topic) between abortion and murder(or at least a set-subset relation), all counterexamples are necessary to be dismissed. Because there are cases that cannot be simply dismissed, such equivalence cannot be drawn. Such uncertainties would mean that in fact, "abortion" cannot just as yet be equated to at least a subset to "murder", or simply, "Abortion ≠ Murder".
5. Dead Fetus
In cases, dead persons can be considered persons. Since Pro thinks that a person's life begins at conception, that means, a dead fetus is a fetus since a dead fetus is a person and a dead person is a person.
If the death of such fetus is not a product of premeditation, yet an abortion procedure is done to remove it while ensuring it is still a dead fetus, then no killing is involved, let alone murder.
Conclusions
- Cases regarding non-human animals are still not yet ruled out due to a lack of clarification on "premeditation".
- Because sometimes, what kills the fetus is not abortion itself, then according to the problem with inheritance, the equivalence cannot be drawn here.
- Removal can occur involving no wombs, let alone killing or murder.
- Aliens that are not humans could give abortions, and they cannot be considered murder, nor can they be absolutely disproven.
- A dead person can be considered a person, so removing a dead fetus, being abortion, kills absolutely nothing.
- Therefore, the equivalence "Abortion = murder" cannot be drawn. This means, as of yet, "Abortion ≠ Murder". Vote CON.
.
Round 3
Con
#6
Conclusions
- Cases regarding non-human animals are still not yet ruled out due to a lack of clarification on "premeditation".
- Because sometimes, what kills the fetus is not abortion itself, then according to the problem with inheritance, the equivalence cannot be drawn here.
- Removal can occur involving no wombs, let alone killing or murder.
- Aliens that are not humans could give abortions, and they cannot be considered murder, nor can they be absolutely disproven.
- A dead person can be considered a person, so removing a dead fetus, being abortion, kills absolutely nothing.
- Therefore, the equivalence "Abortion = murder" cannot be drawn. This means, as of yet, "Abortion ≠ Murder". Vote CON.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Conduct for forfeiture.
Well played kritik by con, side stepping pro’s case by embracing pro’s definitions (in spite of what pro claimed). It set pro so of balance that he tried to argue that any case wherein the mother does not give consent doesn’t count as abortion (which would self evidently include so many terrible cases).
Pro argued he used weird definitions so he wins.
Con brings up that said definitions include cat abortions, IVF, and more; all cases in which it’s “abortion” but no human being has been killed for it to then be “murder”
Well, I suppose I couldn't have been the only one salty about that update, lol.
Slightly? Enough!
I do what I am always good at. That is what happens when there is a prize for winning, for all ELO systems. Chess grandmasters develop moves that can hardly be grasped unless you are also one.
At least that is what it was until the update striked and everything went standard and unrated as if nothing happened.
Somehow I feel like this debate got slightly derailed...
“ CONCLUSION:
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.”
ALL FALLACIOUS APPEALS TO AUTHORITY!!!
A pregnancy is NOT [a] human being. Potentiality =/= Actuality. Never has. Never will. It is impossible. Period. Fact. Period.
“ If it is possible to commit fetal homicide when a pregnant woman is shot, then a fetus doesn't have to be born to be murdered:”
~ No 💩 Sherlock! 🤦🏼♂️
As one capable of reading, you would have seen that it is not “murder” per se since the pregnancy, regardless of stage, is not categorized as “[a] human being.” Therefore it cannot be “murder.” What a the law clearly says (demarcates) the pregnancy to be is that of only a mere “legal victim.” That law is merely a stacking charge to enhance the punishment for murdering the women to begin with.
I mean... There's a reason I defined murder in the description... So that people can't just make up their own jacked up definitions.
If it is possible to commit fetal homicide when a pregnant woman is shot, then a fetus doesn't have to be born to be murdered:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841
But, being a police officer for as many years as you claim to have been, you should be perfectly cognizant of that fact.
Murder is a legal term first and foremost.
Even the laymen’s definition = the legal term.
As such, you PC lost this debate before you even began.
Abortion =/= murder.
Murder takes one (already born) human being taking the life of another (already born) human being without just cause, AND with malice and aforethought.
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.
This presumes that the affirmation of the proposition can be negated if and only if the fetus's life is called into dispute. That is not the case at all. I can maintain that the fetus is alive, and argue that abortion in and of itself is not murder. Your stipulated definitions, however, make it difficult to create a distinction between "cause of death" and "murder." Just a suggestion.
I would suggest, rather than the words " by all causes other than any form of spontaneous miscarriage, birth, or delivery procedure" substitute "intentionally resulting in the death of the fetus."
They amount to about the same, though I will note that some late term abortions do involve labor induction, which might be confused with delivery procedure.
Once again this makes the assumption that the person I'm debating already agrees to either one of two things:
1. It is a human being in the womb and alive.
2. That it is impossibly difficult to debunk the above claim.
I understand what you're trying to do, but no one who's worth their wit would accept the contender's position knowing full well that those definitions of yours pretty much guarantee your victory. If however you wish to debate this subject using the typical definitions of both murder--kill with malice aforethought--and kill--cause the death of--I may consider accepting.
Oh. Okie dokie.
Idk why I couldn't comment on the other one, but you made me CON by accident I think.
I do t see the option on the admin panel.
But if it isn't possible to lower the rating, then I'll make a new debate when I can. I'm at work lol.
Someone else lowered the rating limit once.
You will have to copy the description and create a new debate for it.
U am on my phone and don't see the option to lower the rating so Sir.Lancelot can accept. Can you lower the rating for me?
Sounds valid.
The premeditated and willful removal of a fetus by all causes other than any form of spontaneous miscarriage, birth, or delivery procedure. The Plan B pill does not count as a spontaneous miscarriage.
*argue whether.
If you accept this debate under those pretendes, then I will amend the description to read "except birth or delivery procedures"
Okay, we can keep your original definition then.
I'll accept once the rating is dropped.
Well, I'm not going to argue that a delivery or c-section isn't an abortion.
The definition as originally established in the description is okay with me. Or the definition I chose.
Up to you.
Ok.