Abortion opponents should be sued

Con wrote in Round 1: "The standard by which we determine humanity, no matter what stage of life or development a human may be at, is DNA. Whether a person is 1 day old, or 100 years old, each person has a unique strand of DNA which can be identified as human." That is partly true and partly ridiculous. A human white blood cell, for example, is fully alive and has a full complement of human DNA --but it is most certainly not a "person". It is an almost routine ridiculous mistake that abortion opponents make, to equate "human-ness" with "personhood". About the only difference between a white blood cell and a just-formed zygote is that the zygote has what we might call "fully activated DNA", while the blood cell only has partially active DNA, relevant to its specialization as a white blood cell. Meanwhile, "stem cell research" has almost reached the point were any ordinary cell that is completely equipped with human DNA can be fully activated. Which logically means that the average white blood cell has exactly the same "potential" to grow into a complete human being as a zygote. htt.....ww.mhu.mrc.ac.uk/seminars_section/seminars_08.html (The key phrase in that web page is "induced totipotency".) Another reason why it is ridiculous to equate human-ness with personhood relates to the probability that Somewhere Out There in the Universe are Other Beings fully equivalent to human persons, but who are entirely non-human. Some of them might be more-than-equivalent to human persons, such as God --yet God is claimed to have no physical body at all, at least prior to Creating the physical universe. It is truly ridiculous how believers in God so readily equate human-ness with personhood, when God, by definition, is non-human! Therefore "personhood" requires a definition different from simple human-ness. We must ask, "What characteristics does this non-human have, that qualifies it as a person, while that other non-human over there merely qualifies as an ordinary animal?" It is that definition which will preclude all unborn humans from qualifying as persons. Only animal-level characteristics do they possess, at every development stage in the womb! And here is the best reason I know why it is ridiculous to equate Thing A that merely has "potential" to become Thing B, with the actual Thing B. Consider that in the distant-enough future an average individual human will experience death. At that time, then, the human will exhibit the traits of a corpse. Well, if we can claim an unborn human should be treated as a person now because in the future it will exhibit the traits of a person, then why shouldn't all abortion opponents be treated as corpses right now, because in the far-enough future they will all exhibit the traits of corpses? Since there's so many of them, the simplest thing to do is just round them up and -- only because their own logic declares them to be equivalent of dead -- bury them in mass graves just as they are! Well, let us first kindly give them a chance to recant their ridiculous "logic", before any such burials occur... Next, Con wrote: "... there exists neither an obligation not a permission to sue some-one of a differing belief system then your own." I agree. But the proposed lawsuit here is not about "belief". It is about the fact of detrimental actions. As an analogy, consider classic (stereotyped?) "Gypsy" culture, which has been claimed to lead to a lot of theft, when the Gypsies interacted with members of other cultures. Regardless of what they believed, Gypsy actions were not acceptable to members of other cultures. In this case, the action is to claim something that is not the proper Truth about unborn humans. They are in fact "babies under construction", and are as subject to Murphy's Law as any other very complex process. To obscure that Truth, however it is obscured, raises false hopes and expectations about the success of those construction projects --which in turn leads to unnecessary emotional suffering whenever the construction projects fail and miscarriages naturally occur. And that, the raising of false hopes and expectations, is simply wrong, unethical and immoral. Next, Con wrote: "To make the claim that they can't be called a baby or a child despite their possessing human DNA ..." This has nothing to do with why an unborn human doesn't deserve to be called a baby or a child. Consider an automobile assembly line. At what point does the thing under construction truly qualify for the label "automobile", and not the description "automobile under construction"? We have proper words such as "embryo" and "fetus" to describe an unborn mammal under construction. To refuse to use those proper words, and to insist on calling an unborn human a "baby" or "child" (as in "propaganda"), is exactly equivalent to ignoring the facts of the present and invoking the future, such as we would be doing by calling an abortion opponent a "corpse", as previously described. What I have done, by indicating that abortion opponents deserve-to-be/should-be sued, is to show that there is an additional reason why it is improper to call an unborn human a "baby" or "child" --a reason they never previously considered, but now cannot be ignored. Next, Con wrote: "My opponent makes a logical argument claim that women who are told that a fetus is not a baby or a child ..." --and this is not what I originally wrote: "... is told ... that she has a baby-under-construction, and she is told that the construction process might fail ..." There are significant differences between "baby", "not a baby" and "baby under construction"! You won't find the phrase "not a baby" in either of my previous postings to this Debate. Next, Con wrote: "Suffering a miscarriage is a tragic situation no matter who you are, and most(if not all) experts agree that the best way to handle one is not to pretend like the woman was never pregnant ..." That has nothing to do with what I was talking about. It is most certainly not a denial of pregnancy to tell a woman to be mindful of the possibility that the process naturally fails to be completed 15% of the time, and her pregnancy might become one of those statistics. It is a before the fact preparation that I was talking about, while Con is describing the after the fact problem, which as I've shown in this Debate, gets exacerbated by abortion opponents who create unrealistic expectations during the pregnancy!