IID: Abortion Is 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.