Birth is an arbitrary dividing line between personhood and non-personhood.

I would like to begin this debate by accomplishing two things. First and foremost, I sincerely thank Con for accepting this debate. Secondly, in order to clear up any potential confusion, I am making a slight amendment to the provided definition of abortion, changing it from “the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy” to “the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy resulting in the death of the fetus(es)”.StatementPersonhood, or the lack thereof, is the prime determination as to whether or not a death falls inside or outside of established moral bounds. Therefore, if it can be determined that the use of birth as the dividing line between personhood and non-personhood is arbitrary, than there can be no moral difference between abortion and infanticide.Arguments1. There is no consensus on when personhood is attained. a) At conception There are many people, especially those belonging to particular religious faiths (Evangelistic Christian, Catholic, etc), who believe that personhood is attained at conception. For instance, the official stance of the Catholic church is that the fertilization of a human egg is the "moment that marks the beginning of the existence of a new 'human being'". [1] Those who support personhood status at conception contend that since the zygote has a complete and unique human genetic code, it is just as much an individual human being as anyone else, and should be afforded the same rights as any other being with personhood. [2] b) During the pregnancyOther contend that a fetus is considered a person after a particular milestone during uterine development. These include, but are in no means limited to: After the embryo has implanted in the uterine wall. - Since the embryo is now actively sending "hormonal messages that we can receive" it is now a person. [3] After the embryo has passed the period where it could segment. - Now that is no longer has the ability to branch off into multiple organisms, it is now a person. [4] After the fetus begins to develop a central nervous system and/or brain. - Just as it's cessation to function indicates death, it's beginning indicates life. [5] After four months of gestation. - According to the majority of Islam, this is the point at which the fetus receives a soul and is thus a person. [6] After the fetus has developed a heart beat. - Similarly to brain function, a heart beat, in many views, is the indicator of life. [7] After the fetus is viable. - Given that a fetus can survive at this point outside of the womb, it has achieved personhood. [8] c) After infanthoodNumerous doctors and philosophers have stated that personhood is not obtained until well after birth. For instance, renowned ethicist Peter Singer stated that an infant should not be considered a person until at least 30 days after birth, as there was "no ontologically significant difference between the fetus and a newborn". [9] He contended that since infants were incapable of "seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time" they were not persons. [10]Similarly, Dr. Alberto Giubilini and Dr. Francesca Minerva stated in an article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics that "both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons". They claimed that as only an "individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her" should be considered a person, and consequently, "after-birth abortion" was not only moral, but potentially beneficial to society as a whole. [11]2. Many specifically argue that birth is NOT when personhood is achieved.Many contend that there is no fundamental change upon a infant's personhood during or immediately after it's exodus from it's mother's body. There is no change in the cognition levels, size, or absolute dependency upon another (be it mother or surrogate) for survival once the fetus is born.Given those facts, Peter Singer stated that “the liberal search for a morally crucial dividing line between the newborn baby and the fetus has failed to yield any event or stage of development that can bear the weight of separating those with a right to life from those who lack such a right.” [12]Ann Furedi, the CEO of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, put it very plainly by saying that "there is nothing magical about passing through the birth canal that transforms it from a fetus to a person". [13] ConclusionGiven that there is no agreed upon moment as to when a non-person zygote/fetus/infant becomes a person, and the use of birth as that philosophical divide is specifically disputed, it can be assumed that abortion and infanticide are morally equivalent. Sources[1] http://catholiceducation.org...[2] Rice, Charles (1969). The Vanishing Right to Live. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc. pp. 29–31.[3] Nathanson, Bernard N. M.D.; Ostling, Richard N. (1979). Aborting America. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc. p. 216.[4] Bullough, Bonnie; Bullough, Vern L. (1994)."Catholic Attitudes Toward Sexuality:Abortion". Human sexuality: an encyclopedia. New York: Garland Pub. p. 89. ISBN 0-8240-7972-8. Retrieved 2008-12-07.[5] http://jme.bmj.com...[6] "(The matter of the Creation of) a human being is put together in the womb of the mother in forty days, and then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period, and then a piece of flesh for a similar period. Then Allah sends an angel who is ordered to write four things...then the soul is breathed into him"Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:54:430[7] http://www.opednews.com...[8] http://www.slate.com...[9] http://www.equip.org...[10] Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2d ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 171, 188.[11] http://jme.bmj.com...[12] Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2d ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 142.[13] http://www.battleofideas.org.uk...;