The Unborn Are Persons From Fertilization

Actually, what I said about doctors treating the unborn like any other person is entirely accurate, as I showed last round. If an unborn child is wanted, she is treated like a person, even receiving life-saving treatment in the womb. If the unborn are not wanted, they are given a very different surgery. One designed not to heal them, but to kill them. I didn't say that the unborn were considered "legal" persons, just that they are treated as persons if they are wanted. The unborn are not counted in the census because under the Fourteenth Amendment they are not U. S. citizens. This does not mean they don't have a right to life, since it is immoral to kill illegal immigrants in the U. S. despite their not being citizens. As a matter of fact, my amenment to Con's argument did, in fact, amend it. Con claims I am saying that all humans are persons, but this is not the case. Individual human cells have human DNA but they are not persons. This is because they are not separate organisms, like the unborn are (as I have already justified and Con has not argued against). Being human is a sufficient condition, not a necessary condition for basic human rights. This is why intelligent alien species would qualify, as well as God or angels would qualify. They are not human, but they have the same qualities that gives humans intrinsic value: the inherent capacity as rational, moral agents. Additionally, Con uses an invalid conversion of his own Strawman argument, creating another Strawman argument. All persons are not necessarily humans, because intelligent alien species, as well as God and angels, should also be considered to be persons. Let me now direct your attention to the definition of inherent: adjective: 1. Existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute. [1] Remember that in round one I defined value as that which gives someone (born or unborn) the right to life. We are inherently valuable based on the kind of thing we are, living human organisms. We are living human organisms from fertilization, so our inherent value never changes. Inherent value certainly does exist, and my usage of the phrase is perfectly reasonable. Con's rabbit trail of the word "being" (apart from beginning with an equivocation) is a complete red herring and does nothing to detract from my argument. We are all human beings. The unborn are living human organisms from fertilization, just as we are living human organisms. The unborn are human beings just as we are human beings. It has nothing to do with subtly trying to convince someone of anything. I have already proven that the unborn is a person, and Con has, thus far, failed to refute my definition of personhood, and he has failed to provide his own. He merely begs the question, assuming that the unborn are not persons without providing any justification for his claim. A quick note about level of development (since Con brought it up). It is not adequate criteria for ascribing personhood. For example, toddlers are less developed than adults. Yet (almost) no one believes it is morally justifiable to kill them. The reason murder is illegal is because it kills a human being. As such, abortion should also be illegal because it kills a human being. If you cannot kill a human outside the womb simply for being less developed, neither is it moral to kill an unborn child for that same reason. Here, Con takes a bizarre turn. He starts arguing from the right to refuse, and no doubt the right to refuse is a very strong argument in favor of aborton. But the right to refuse arguments accept that the unborn are human, and are persons! This completely undermines Con's entire argument, since he is arguing against the unborn's personhood, and even their humanity. If Con is correct, then right to refuse arguments are essentially useless. It's perfectly fine to kill the unborn for any reason, so no right to refuse is necessary. However, Con is not correct, as I have demonsrated. So I will address the right to refuse argument he brought up. It is simply silly to hold the unborn accountable for taking biological resources from someone else without asking permission. In the vast, vast majority of cases, sex was consensual. Therefore, the mother and father are responsible for the unborn child's creation and the unborn child's state of neediness (as Con stated, "taking biological resources from someone else"). But you might ask yourself, what about rape? Rape certainly is a horrible tragedy, one that no woman should ever have to go through. It's a travesty that rapists are almost never punished and when they are, they are never punished enough. But why should the child pay for his life for the crimes of his father? Shouldn't we hold the rapist, not the child, accountable? Having an abortion is not going to make the woman forget about the rape. Why compound one act of violence upon another? Let me offer an analogy. Say two woman are raped. One has an abortion, one gives birth to the child. This child becomes two years old and suddenly starts to take on the features of the rapist, to where whenever the mother looks upon the child she is filled with rage to the point she wants this child dead. Is she morally justified in killing this child? I would hope you would say no. If no, then why not? Why can't she kill the two-year-old child outside the womb, but she can kill the unborn child inside the womb? Both are human beings. Con's examples of modus operandi are irrelevant. It is true that the unborn child is completely dependent on the woman, but so is the infant that must breastfeed on the mother. So why is it okay to kill the unborn child but not the born child? Becaus of modus operandi? Certainly not! Both are completely dependent upon the woman for their survival. If it is wrong to kill an infant who is completely dependent upon her mother, then why is it justfiable to kill an unborn child for the same reason? Con's appeal to the ancient Romans is irrelevant. It is an appeal to popular opinion. The Romans were wrong to kill infants, as can be philosophically justified. Here, also, Con presents a severely fallacious understanding of responsibility. The vampires are in the wrong and should be stopped because they are aware of what they are doing, and what they are doing is wrong. They are malevolent beings. It is unfortunate that they require blood to survive, but if vampires existed there could likely be ways to sate the vampires' hunger without resorting to them sucking other peoples' blood (for example, set up some kind of blood donor program for vampires). Con is simply incorrect by claiming the unborn are just as immoral/unethical as vampires. First, as I explained, the mother and father are responsible for the child's being there. The child is not responsible for that. Second, the unborn do not understand what they are doing, so they don't bear responsibility as the vampires do. However, this is largely a moot point since pregnancy is a natural process. The woman's body is designed to get pregnant and to care for the child while she is pregnant. Therefore, unborn children are not parasites. Con begs the question by stating that they are unable to ask permission and they don't understand what they are doing are not valid. I have shown that they are valid objections and Con simply assumes they are not valid. I have supported my argument in spades, and Con has failed to rebut my qualifications. I might also remind Con that no one "destroys" an argument. No one has the last word on any argument. I have already shown why she grants permissin by having sex briefly, but apparently more on that next round.