Abortion

Damn Gdougie, back at it again with the unbacked claims of personhood.But I digress.My opponent has the burden of proof when claiming a fetus is a sentient human being with the same rights as us. Otherwise, it is the job of every person to argue against the personhood of every organism qualified as life: ants, weeds, jelly fish, birds, etc. All of these creatures are not personds, although they are alive.In Round 3, he stated:"Now my opponent might try to argue that this source is referring to the baby as a mother would talk about a fetus in her womb; however, in the context of the source, the source is referring to the fetus as a person. You would never use pronouns such as "his" to refer to a person (or fetus) who is not a human being or animal. A more appropriate term for something that was not a human being would be "it", something that was not living or a human being/animal."And again, I will give a response since he more referred back to his previous roundThe source is a parenting article. It is not a philosophical argument for the personhood of a fetus. I was using it simply as an easy to read depiction of a fetus' growth stateMy opponent's argument is basically that a parenting website's article's language aimed at parents is grounds for declaring personhood for a fetus. Secondly, my opponent simply says that a child's development makes it a person.Why? Why is that? And growth in what way? It is not a person before it starts to grow? Only when it splits into a two-cell creature? Is it not a person in between growth stages? Is a senior citizen not a person when he begins to break down, the opposite of developing? Why not another definition? I could just as easily say you're only human if you are growing in a specific way (such as your toe length. In fact, that is my argument. I am arguing that a fetus has no personhood rights before it is capable of actual sentience, which, as in the case with most abortions, the fetus is not capable of that. ************************************Now, as to the Biblical argument, my opponent again seems to have missed the point."Here is verse on accidental with an explanation:" (I believe the word accidental is supposed to be abortion)"My apologies on the typo, I wrote that on my phone. That passage is about a miscarriage caused by purposeful negligence. I was going to say accidental abortion: the aim was not necessarily to kill the child.My argument was that the law clearly states that murder must be punished with execution (life for life)And yet, when the fetus dies, a fine is paid. In fact, YHWH must not see a fetus as human, or this verse would call for execution. Instead, there is a fine.In Genesis 2:7, the "breath of life" makes someone human. However, it, again, is applied to adults. It does not specifiy when it occurs in offspring... which is a large portion of this debate. Now my opponent might try to argue that this source is referring to the baby as a mother would talk about a fetus in her womb; however, in the context of the source, the source is referring to the fetus as a person. You would never use pronouns such as "his" to refer to a person (or fetus) who is not a human being or animal. A more appropriate term for something that was not a human being would be "it", something that was not living or a human being/animal.