It is illogical to choose birth as the milestone for attaining rights.

I would first like to address the definition of person. In philosophy, personhood is not limited to human beings; it looks at qualities that most humans have that make the vast majority of humans, persons. If he wants a recorded definition, I'll give Mary Ann Warren's. In her paper on abortion she defines person as a being that has 1. Consciousness and the capacity to feel pain 2. Open-ended reasoning ability 3. Self-motivated activity 4. The capacity to communicate in an open-ended way 5. Self-awareness (This comes from an anthology I have, I googled her name and I found this site:http://instruct.westvalley.edu... which has this defintion in it if you need verification.) This is used because simply being genetically human is not sufficient to be considered mentally or morally a person. If it was, then "not guilty by insanity" would not be a viable plea. It is neither objective nor logical to distribute personhood based on genetic code. Now, to address his points. "-1)Animals do have laws that protect them, which I consider to be rights in a fashion that they allow for some protection for their own well-being. I never stated anywhere that only humans receive rights. I did state, however, that we were to discuss humans, not animals, so there would be no confusion. Humans have far more complex and detailed rights that allow for society and government to function in this country. But this is not what we are trying to resolve, whether as to why humans have rights and mammals and birds do not. We are resolving that the rights given to a human are ascertained through birth, which I firmly believe. This allows for no grey areas to appear. The instant a child is born, in any fashion (I am aware there are other procedures as to how to deliver a child not through the normal route), they receive the rights granted to them through the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence" Okay, I was referring to the statement that once fetuses are born, they become humans, giving them rights. This limits all rights to humans, if humans are the only persons. Humans in general are persons, but some are not persons in the mental or moral sense. Humanhood is not personhood, not all humans meet the criteria necessary to be considered humans. It is illogical to say humanhood qualifies for personhood. Obviously another standard is necessary. I feel that that standard would be the Future Like Ours, if any being will have a future where it is a person, it should be treated as a person. That is a) not a grey area, and b) a logical and definitive milestone. I am aware that this would mean that certain individuals that are humans would not have rights this way, but lack of rights does not warrant that we can be cruel to that individual. Dogs don't ave rights, but we protect them because we don't want pain and suffering to fall on them. "-2)The difference between a newborn is that he or she will develop into something far superior to what a mammal or bird will ever aspire to. That newborn may develop a cure to a cancer, bettering the health of our society overall. I do not see many mammals or birds with white coats on in laboratories trying to better their own specific race." A fetus will develop into something far superior as well. Just because the newborn doesn't have a little cord attached to it and the fetus does won't change that fact. Both are not persons and both will become persons, my argument is clearly superior. This statement only supports it. "-1)In no dictionary, judge, will you find this particular definition of the word "person". Why? Because my opponent made it up on the spot, claiming that he feels it is a superior definition. If we followed what he does, than I could state that Superior now means incorrect. Things like this do not work." I was referring to person in a philosophical sense, not in a common usage sense. Being a person in a moral sense is very different than the Merriam-Webster definition. "Basically, my opponent is saying that infants/newborns are not persons. Would that be safe to say that my opponent has little respect for human life? He feels that a person cannot receive rights because those humans are not self-aware. When should we, then, hand rights over to these humans? At an age of reason? No. That is a whole other debate. A fetus becomes a human at the instant of birth, and at that instant he or she is granted rights in the United States from the Constitution." Okay, first, it is not safe to say I have little respect for human life. I said that infants, all though they are not persons, have a FLO, and that justifies giving them basic rights. Also, the Constitution grants rights to "persons" which recently has been challenged as extending to any organism that is a person in the moral sense, like I said before. Anyways the Constitution is a legal document, not necessarily the utmost authority on when to give rights, which are moral concerns. "My opponent then states his case on the matter. He says that rights should be granted at moment of contraception. This is where we disagree on things that are directly relevant to this debate. I feel that a human is a human at the exact moment of birth, not at conception. There must be time allotted in order for the fetus to develop. How would giving a human rights at the moment he or she is born be a denial of rights? My opponent seems to think we should treat the fetus as though it has rights, even though it is still under the direct influence of developing through its mothers care. I feel strongly that a fetus is a fetus until birth, therefore must receive rights at birth. If we waited later until the infant was older, or "self-aware", that would be a major denial of rights. For the sake of making the process of obtaining rights sensible and clear, a fetus is not a human until birth, where he or she attains the rights granted to all US Citizens by law." Okay, my opponent's logic is extremely flawed. In a moral sense, there is no real difference between a infant and a very late-term fetus that would warrant denying the fetus rights and giving the newborn rights. The superior standard is the FLO. Personhood is illogical because it could be used to justify infanticide or abortion. Birth, is illogical because it is giving rights to nonpersons who are in a moral sense, indistinguishable from late-term fetuses. It creates a double-standard, denying fetuses rights simply because they have an umbilical cord attaching them to their mother.