Human Personhood Begins at and by Human Conception (fertilization)

While I am thankful to Con for his well-reasoned and civil approach to the issues in R3. I feel that I should correct my opponent on one crucial detail before addressing anything else this round.Recap In R3 I asked my opponent: "... Doesn't, the "equal protections" clause of the 14th amendment and the even greater cause of "equal rights" come with the expectation that we cannot define "persons" one way under one law to establish their rights and then to define them another way under another law as to deny them? (R-3)"My opponent responded with: "I agree. Therefore we can only conclude that when laws and statues do, in fact, define a person one way under one law and another way under another law then they are not using the label 'person' in the same sense as is meant by the 14th Amendment such that it is subject to its protection. Otherwise such redefinition would be disallowed as unconstitutional."Con, when your response to my argument "there is an inconsistency in our laws" is to claim that "there can not possibly be an inconsistency because if there were one, the disparity would have been ruled unconstitutional by now?" You are making an appeal to authority (fallacious) argument [15]. I am trying to prove there is an inconsistency in our laws with regard to the 'personhood' of children in the womb... and You are defending the status quo by citing the fact that it hasn't been ruled 'unconstitutional' (yet) as your defense. That is a classic "appeal to authority” [15] attempt. Please understand I am not accusing Con of making a fallacious argument deliberately. However, (as seen below) this was not a one-time occurrence. Con also stated "… we needn't even try and apply such logic. The clause explicitly only pertains to those who are born"Here again, it is most frustrating to try to make the case that the 14th Amendment (being inclusive in its intent) should include protections for children in the womb... only to be reminded that it doesn't already do so or that it has not historically done so. Con is again 'appealing to authority' [15] when he uses that (quoted above) as his counter. It is understood and it is not denied (by Pro) that at the time the 14th Amendment was written, it was not intended to include 'persons' in the womb. Pro contends that the writers of the 14th Amendment were not trying to EXCLUDE any persons when they wrote the Amendment and the 'equal protections clause.' Indeed, one of the ways to remedy the inconsistencies that we now have in some of these laws would be for the courts to find that the 14th Amendment (and the 5th Amendment [16]) does in fact afford the equal protections of our laws to young human beings (persons) in the womb.About Birth as mentioned in the 14th AmendmentI hope that Con will consider the fact that the 14th Amendment uses the word born only as a means to establish the status of "citizen" to a person born in the U.S. or under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Quote: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.[14]" Translation; ’Persons Born’ = CitizensThe amendment goes on to say; "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens (persons born) of the United States.[14]" This is true and it seems to support Con’s claim. But then the amendment goes on to say;" nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."Note that it does not say ‘nor shall any state deprive any Citizen’ or 'any persons born’ in that phrase. It is a very inclusive statement in that it declares “the state shall not deprive ANY person of life, liberty or property nor deny to ANY person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of our laws." Does Con agree that the 14th Amendment was intended to be inclusive and was not intended to be interpreted to deny rights to any human persons?Intermediate SummaryI have shared with Con, the legal definitions for "natural person [2]"and I have noted that 'a human being' in the womb qualifies by sharing links to the U.S. Code which already defines an "unborn child" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at ANY stage of development, who is carried in the womb [6]." I have also shared with Con, a link to the definitions of murder [13] in attempt to further show that by making it the crime of murder to unjustly kill a child in the womb, the laws are already in fact acknowledging the 'personhood' of children in the womb. Con's claims (R-2) that prenatal children are "people of convenience, and not natural persons" actually helps to support Pro's claims (R-1) that our laws "to some extent already recognize the fact that human 'personhood' begins at conception."Con may note that Pro never claimed that ALL of our related laws recognize the fact that personhood begins at conception. Only that some do and they all 'should'. People are people. Even persons defined as such only for convenience (as Con claims) are people too. And the 14th Amendment says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty and the equal protections of our laws.Pro's view that all of our laws should recognize the personhood of children in the womb if ANY of them do is in keeping with the spirit of inclusiveness and protections of the 5th and 14th Amendments. [14] [16]. Con concluded: "Pro denies the implicit burden I identified, requiring Pro to not merely demonstrate that fetuses are labeled as persons, but that they are 'natural persons' as well as within the context of the 14th Amendment."This is not true, Con. I have in fact tried to meet some of that burden but explaining to you that the only thing that can warrant the charge of murder is the unlawful / unjust killing of another natural person (another human being.) It is the fact that we have laws which make it the charge of murder for killing a child in the womb that establishes the fact that they are 'natural persons' in the womb. I also provided links to links to biological sources on aging, the life cycle and existing laws to further support this claim. To Con, I ask. What more is it that you would like to see in the way of 'proof' for me to show you that a human being in the first days of their life is "a human being?" A "natural person?" Con continued: "Since Pro asserts that it is the legal definition that is the goal here, and since the only legal definition Pro provided in R1 was that of a 'Natural Person', I reaffirm this implicit burden."A human fetus (human being in the fetal stage of their life) is a 'natural person' in the context of the 14th (and 5th) Amendments because they are NO LESS a natural human being than is a human being who is much older, less deniable and perhaps more developed. PERSONHOOD is not something that human beings grow into. If you are a human being (and a human being in the first days of their life IS ONE).... personhood is automatic. This is where the Supreme Court erred in Roe v Wade. Instead of declaring the personhood of the children who were facing the chances of being aborted, the Courts ruled on when, where and how the States might have the right to intervene. But even then, the Courts NEW (as well as the pro-aborts did) that the 'personhood' of the children in the womb COULD be established and that would trump everything else where the denial of their rights are concerned [17].[15] http://www.nizkor.org...[16] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...[17] http://youtu.be...