A human being in the Zygote, Embryo and Fetal stage of their life is "a human being"

However, this is not going to happen. Pro cannot change terms of the debate after I have accepted the challenge. Pro left the parameters of the challenge reasonably open (while specifically mentioning previous abortion rounds), and I clarified the position I would be defending. It is irrelevant where the debate is classified, and the onus should not be upon me to determine what you imply by a classification; since Pro did not make any definitions clear in the challenge, I provided a standard that I would be arguing. Pro CANNOT fiat a new debate topic in Round 2, and I am fairly disappointed that he has chosen to do so. Regardless, I will present a case to counter Pro's nonsense. What is important to note is that Pro has not defined what a human being is. Something can have human DNA (like my arm does), but that does not make it a human being. The fact that Pro's link does not work does not assist his case. I shall take the liberty of defining human beings in two ways: One that reflects my stance in a legal sense, and one that looks upon what biologically characterizes a human being. Human being:"A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance. " [1]. or, as person (defined as equivalent to human being)," one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties" [2]. The importance of these definitions is that being human is about cognitive abilities, from which mental development and articulate speech come from, and from which we develop rights claims. This means that, to be a separate human being, one must possess these abilities. A zygote/embryo/fetus before the point of viability does not have the mental capacity to do so. These develop around the 22nd week, the same time as the point of viability [3]. Thus, they cannot be human beings in any sense. In essence, what we must note is the difference between life and a human being. I agree that a fetus is alive, and that is has human DNA. That does not make it a human being any more than an egg is a chicken or a seed is a plant. It is the primordium of a human being, from which we can trace the development of the future human being [4]. That does not mean that it is a separate, individual human being in the sense I have held since my opening statement. My opponent appears to be conflating living human tissue with a human being. This is the key problem with Pro's argument, and is one that cannot be resolved. Pro has decided to use ridiculous, unfair semantic shifts and incongruous, unsubstantiated arguments about what human beings are, without using the philosophical and biological nuance that my arguments offer. Note that my definitions of a human being stem from my acceptance, where I clarified what I would be arguing (since that was unclear). Any further definitions offered by Pro shall be irrelevant, as Pro chose not to provide one when given the change during the initialization of the challenge. As such, my arguments flow through, and I am proud to oppose. Thank you. Sources: 1. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...2. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...3. . http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au...4. . https://www.princeton.edu...