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

Thanks to all who have been reading this debate. In this final round, I will again refute Con's key arguments. To minimize confusion, Con's comments will be italicized and bolded and my comments and my responses to Con's claims will follow. #1Con claims that (human) "fetuses are not "full human lives subject to the same rights and protections as you and I," i.e. not human beings..."RESPONSE: Notice Con does not seek concurrence on the parameters for what qualifies as "a full human." In the absence of such a consensus, we are left to decide each for ourselves about what a "fully human" being is. I contend that even in the earliest moments of their life, growth and development - human beings (human organisms) automatically meet the minimum requirements to be recognized as "human" beings. It's worth noting that the LEGAL definition for a NATURAL PERSON [1] is simply "a human being" or "the body of a human being." There are no other requirements like those that Con suggests. Human Beings (Placental Mammals) "bear live young. Live young which are nourished before birth in the mother's uterus through a specialized embryonic organ attached to the uterus wall, the placenta." [2]Contrary to Con's suggestions, human beings do not produce new human beings by way of metamorphosis. We don't have sex to create one organism that only later becomes another. Frogs and butterflies do this but human beings do not. Biologically, We (human beings) are the same organisms at the beginning of our life cycles (conception) that we are at the end our life cycles (death). [3]Con does not seem to appreciate the fact that our Fetal Homicide Laws (referenced earlier) already define and treat "children in the womb" as full human beings - by making it a crime of MURDER to intentionally kill one in a criminal act. In that way, Fetal Homicide laws recognize "children in the womb" as real human beings and not just as 'fictional' - persons. #2Con claims (in R3) that I "need to discuss why fetuses SHOULD receive the same protections as you and I. "RESPONSE: With all due respect to my opponent - No - I don't. This debate was never about what the protections of a human being in the womb "SHOULD" be. While I agree that the debate could have been framed more clearly from the beginning - it has always been about whether not a human being in the zygote, embryo and or fetal stages of their life is "a human being" and nothing else.#3Con claims in R3 that : "A piece of legislation does not make something true in any philosophical or biological sense."RESPONSE: Con is correct in that comment. However, the legislation presented was not presented as a response to Con's demands for biological or philosophical proof or evidence. The Laws were presented in response to Con's comments and definitions in R-2 about human beings in "the LEGAL sense."I submit that not only do our Fetal Homicide Laws already "legally" define a "child in the womb" as "a human being" but our U.S. Patent laws establish the same[4]. #5Con posted: "2) Legislation and legal code regarding this status is mixed. The Supreme Court HAS upheld these convictions, but a reading of the rationale will dispel Pros resultant claim:"RESPONSE: I disagree with Con's conclusion that - that language "dispels my claims." I encourage readers to read the complete text of the ruling cited [5] for themselves. So they can see where the Judge dismissed the convicted killer's claim that "the feticide statute is unconstitutional because there is no unlawful taking of a human life" as "FRIVILOUS."#6Con then presented this piece of legislation to support his/ her view:"Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought." - California Penal Code, Section 187(a). Con then added: "Note that this piece of legislation explicitly delineates fetuses as SEPARATE FROM a human being."RESPONSE: My opponent and I agree that our laws are not infallible. Laws can be wrong and we know that they have been wrong in the past. That said, If my opponent will take some time and read the complete text of California Penal Code, Section 187 - Con will see that the division Con claims is not actually there - because the actual text includes this: "Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart."[6] This language includes a child in the womb as "a fellow creature."#7Con Continued with the claim that I have "completely missed the crux of Con's argument, that being a human being, and having rights, is specifically about having the capacity to reason, to be sentient. It is these capabilities that are meant to be protected, through rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."RESPONSE: Con seems to be unaware of the legal rulings and Court's decisions which deal with the basic human rights of children born with anencephalia. Children born with NO cerebral cortex at all. [8] No ability to think, reason or to become self aware. Our courts have ruled consistently that those children are just as entitled to the protections of our laws that all other persons are entitled to. In doing so, the courts have ruled against Con's claims about sentience. #8 Con adds: "For instance, we allow the unplugging of brain dead patients, which effectively prevents them from biologically functioning. A brain dead patient has several things in common with a fetus: 1) They have living human tissue, and 2) Their brain cannot support cognitive abilities. We allow families to unplug in these scenarios because the patient has nothing left to legally protect; they have ceased being human beings, just as fetuses are not yet human beings."RESPONSE: Con might want to know that I had to deal with this very situation not very long ago when my wife suffered a cardiac arrest and was subsequently put on life support. I can't describe how repulsive it is - to be told she had "ceased being a human being" in the opinion of my opponent. Con does not seem to appreciate what the criteria actually is - for the removal of someone from life support. PROGNOSIS is key in that decision and I challenge Con or anyone else to find a doctor who would be willing to remove life support from any of their patients who has even a fraction of the prognosis that a typical human being in the fetal stage of their life has. #9Con said: "Pro attempts to say that a fetus has age. They don't."RESPONSE: Yes, they do. Con does not seem to know or appreciate the scientific fact that a human being begins to age (biologically) at conception. Reference: "Aging begins at conception and terminates at death. As we progress through life and its four major states: 1. conception and birth, 2. puberty and adolescence, 3. adulthood and 4. senescence, we realize and experience the fact that the human body is biologically changing. It is growing, changing and aging.[9]"#10Con added: "We both agree that development of the fetus begins with fertilization... The difference is what we call such an organism. I concede, a fetus is living. I concede, a fetus has human DNA. That does not make it a human being..." & "An egg is not a chicken, a seed is not a plant, and a fetus is not a human being." RESPONSE: Con does not seem to appreciate the fact that a fertilized (chicken) egg actually is a very young chicken (organism) or that a germinated seed is likewise a young member of it's own species[10]. Con accuses me of playing semantics, then engages in a play on semantics of his/her own. What we "call" an organism matters greatly to how that organism will be treated. By placing arbitrary standards that a new "human organism" must breech before Con will finally (reluctantly) accept it as a "fully human being" is to me unacceptable. I believe that beings are defined by the attributes that they have and not by the arbitrarily decided attributes that they may temporarily lack. [11] Please vote PRO if you agree. Source1. Person http://dictionary.findlaw.com...2. Mammals http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...3. Human Life Begins http://bdfund.org...4. U.S. Patent Office http://www.uspto.gov...5. Smith V Newsome http://openjurist.org...6. CA Penal Code http://www.leginfo.ca.gov...7. UVVA http://www.law.cornell.edu...8. Baby K https://highschoolbioethics.georgetown.edu...9. Aging http://snl.depaul.edu...10. Illustration https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net...11. BEING http://www.lexic.us...