Abortion is murder.

Introduction and Review Since PRO’s opening round has little for me to respond to, I’m going to take on his Opening Statements and Rebuttals in this round. Normally, I would save my counter-rebuttals for Round 4, but given the very small volume of arguments in Round 2, I’m going to use Round 3 to address PRO’s arguments from R2 and R3. Also, do remember that PRO has full Burden of Proof here. It is not on me to prove the resolution false. It is on PRO to demonstrate the resolution true. To do this, PRO must show that fetuses are human beings. Round 2 “Abortion fits [the first definition] in the sense that abortion is deliberate on the part of the abortion clinic and of the woman.” Deliberate? Yes. Unlawful [D1]? Well, abortion is legal. Which is to say that abortion is permitted by law. So, no, abortion is not unlawful. Since it is not unlawful, PRO will need to offer another reason to believe abortion is murder. “Murder can also be defined as the deprivation of the life of another being without that other being's consent.” “Can also be defined as”? So, stepping on an ant by accident is murder by both definitions? I think not. If this definition is appropriate, it should coincide with our own understanding of the term, at least in general usage. Unfortunately, PRO’s definition of murder here seems to be quite contrary to the consensus on the term. While there are a number of theories regarding the meanings of words and how definitions are arrived at, there is still the issue of why we should accept definitions. PRO’s definition does not coincide with our understanding of the term. Generally, a definition should answer the question “What is ____?” and relatively accurately express what we mean. Definitions are formal expressions of what we mean when we use a certain word. When someone says “A killed B”, there are several interpretations of the term. For example, A could have killed B in self-defense, or hit B with a car, or something of that sort. However, to say “A murdered B” is to say there was some level of intent or planning. So, I am lead to consider this definition inappropriate. I would implore the audience to take this line of reasoning into consideration. Round 3 Attacking a Syllogism I would like to call to attention the nature of deductive argument. With logically valid syllogisms, the conclusion is a result of the premises. That is to say, when the premises are true, and the argument is valid, the conclusion must be true as well [1]. PRO would have to address one or both of the premises of my arguments to show my conclusions false. That is how logical arguments work. Now, if the information that PRO was introducing were capable of disproving my conclusion, that would be different, but simply stating that fetuses are living things is insufficient to do that. However, I will still addresses PRO’s “responses” just to further solidify my case. Response to C1: “3) Living things [can] create organisms of only the same species… According to the third point, since the fetus, which is an organism, was created by humans, the fetus is technically a human.” Correction: “the fetus is technically a human in development”. If PRO’s reasoning and conclusion are correct, the claim that “an acorn is an oak tree” should be a true claim. However, the acorn must go through a process before it can be described as a tree. Likewise, a fetus must undergo a process before it can be considered a tree. The nature of the acorn is the same as that of an oak tree; the acorn has the potentiality to be a tree. The fetus has the potentiality to be a human. Potential to be a thing does not mean one is that thing. I could, potentially, be a graphic novelist, for instance. There is nothing about me that prevents this from being so, but in order for it to be so, there must be further circumstances in place. Likewise, in order for a fetus to be a human being, something more than genetic coding must be in place. There is the (general) physical structure that we expect of humans, the ability to breathe through a set of lungs, the ability to process nutrients via an individual system (I use my stomach to digest the food I put into my mouth), and awareness of and response to outside stimuli. Such things are true of all mammals, yet not true of fetuses [1]. All humans are mammals. To be a human actually requires that you are a mammal, which in turn requires that you are an animal. Despite the fact that fetuses can be considered alive (as alive as plants, fungi, and bacteria), they do not exhibit some of the more basic biological requirements of being animals, let alone being mammals or humans. Being that the status of “animal” is required to being human, fetuses must exhibit these basic animal characteristics to be considered human beings. Having the same genetic coding doesn’t equate having the same designation. Response to C2 Hinges on Response to C1. Response to C3 Also hinges on response to C1. Conclusion I find PRO’s arguments thus far highly inadequate. PRO would have us believe that the only requirement to be considered “alive” when one is an animal is that one has the genetic code of an animal. By that logic, all animals are alive, but all animals are not alive. So, there must be a problem with PRO’s reasoning. I would submit that PRO has failed to fully assess the traits that are included in “life” when it comes to animals. Plants, fungi, and bacteria are all living things, but they are alive in a different ways. I would accept the claim that killing animals is murder, as one can make a reasonable case for that interpretation of “murder”. I have offered a stipulated definition of “human being” based on similarities to other animals to avoid that discussion, but PRO hasn’t even addressed that stipulated definition, despite the fact that it could be objected to. Sources [1] http://philosophy.lander.edu... [2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [3] http://biology.tutorvista.com... Definitions [D1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [D2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [D3] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [D4] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...