DDO Tournament Debate: Zygotes Should be Recognized as Persons

Part 1 Final Rebuttal3 | Superset has not been proven deductivelyAs Pro did not point to the part of his argumentation where he deductively shown that personhood is a superset of humanity, I am presuming he meant that it was developed over the course of his arguments 1a to b. Visually and rhetorically is point 3. rather loosely placed after a certainly not directly relevant #2 equality which didn't help making it "intuitively obvious". Argument 1b has shown that a Zygote is a human organism and 1a why Pro claims that personhood applies to all life states of a human organism. The only possible deduction therefore would be that being a human organism is the decisive factor for personhood. Which does not make it a superset. Neither a god nor iRobot supercomputer VIKI are human organisms. 1a | Law of IdentityIt's also questionable that personhood is applicable to any state of the human life circle. I've shown that there are biological characteristics that apply to more than one but not all stages. Personhood can therefore theoretically also apply to some but not all stages. Pro has not properly outlined why Personhood and Humanity are the same. The law of identity is not enough, because A isn't "intuitively obviously" A here. Whether personhood and humanity are an example for the law of identity is the whole point of this debate and claiming that it applies is just a repetition of the core statement. It's a moral assumption not a scientific argumentation. Note | I am not sure where I ever stated that "biological facts shouldn't be the basis for law". I just pointed out that they are not equal (Round 3 Argument 1b). That doesn't mean that biological facts are irrelevant for law. But not all are all the time.1a | Ignoring facts and DiscriminationIgnoring facts is also something that we do every day. We evaluate and then conclude that some are not relevant or variable. Law must apply to all and for that we constantly ignore individual facts. The whole idea of equality is based on "ignoring facts". Gender equality is for example ignoring the biological factor gender to ensure justice. Discrimination, Equality and Justice are as difficult as they are because organisms are physically and mentally different and sometimes need to be treated different to ensure justice. That's why courts exist: Every convicted murderer gets punished but not all get the same punishment. That's they grey area of life and Pro's black-and-white-argumentation is morally comforting but not realistic. 1b - 2/4a | Fundamental rights Yes, law is there to regulate the relationship of two individuals. But not even law can resolve the contradiction that occurs when the same right is hold by two parties and exclude each other. Usually one right overlaps with another but not the same or is not exclusive. My right to live where I want might overlap with someones property rights - this is solvable because these rights are not the same and come with limitations. These limitations can be evaluated against each other. Two rights to live can not be evaluated against each other. No judge could decide whether the Zygote-Person or the Mother have a claim to live. Especially not in time (from a practical point). (1.1) To take and hold social privileges are an extend of our fundamental right as they are ensured by it. Law is not a one-way-street. Social privileges like jails (not for those in them but those NOT in them) are directly linked to fundamental rights and their limitations. 4b | SlaveryTrue, slavery means ownership (my bad). But depending on what you argue the focus lies either on the mother or the unborn. If the mother is legally forced to die to give her child a chance she's been legally enslaved, because her role has to be reduced to serve the willing or rather unwilling decisions of the unborn. If the unborn has to die for the mother's sake it's the unborn that has been enslaved. That's the paradox I've been trying to show the whole time.We only have two options: we establish it that way and create a conflict that will need to be individually resolved unlawfully (as it will always end up enslaving one party) or we don't create it in the first place by not defining a Zygote as a person. I don't want to be pointed out as racist or discriminating, but there are no other options as far as I can see. Reality strikes again, to be bold. 2.0 | A conscript to protect the "country" (not an individual for that matter) at the cost of personal well being is in all democracies linked to war. Pregnancy is no war and it would be rather hasty to apply war-morals. This is especially relevant when a woman has not deliberately chosen to become pregnant (rape, contraception accident). 2.2 | Source [9] is a bit weak for my personal taste. It relates to a study published in 1982, held at only one hospital and reviewed only 74,317 births within a ten year period (1971-1981/2?). Therefore the study does not even relate to the five deaths between 1989 and 1991. Also: as Ireland is strongly catholic/ christian (as some might remember the riots) the conclusion that "induced abortion would not, in any way, have reduced the number of maternal deaths" makes the whole source a bit problematic. They also compare absolute numerical death figures of two countries with different populations. 2.3 | Picking one example out of a list just to imply a discriminating statement that ignores the context might sound clever but it's poor style. Shame itself is not a sufficient reason to kill someone but the combination of problems that face a (especially unwillingly) pregnant woman can be overwhelming and a situation like this never just relates to just one personal problem. 1.2B | Pro gives two good examples how to deal with a twin situation. They both are based on the assumption that the Zygote was a person at the beginning, so I'll just refer to the first two arguments of this round to repeat why this is not fully established. But I'd like to point out that Pro again is messing up personhood and humanity, by stating that the Zygote has been a "human being" all along. 1.3B | Personally I am getting tired of this habit/style to Pick only one Part and twist into something that sound racist. It's uncreative and absolute. And absolutes are something that I've already pointed out many times as unfounded and unrealistic. Still...While in-Vitro fertilization can't claim that, embryonic stem cell research for example creates a new grey area in terms of medicine and law. Implanting embryonic stem cells to save a life by murdering/sacrificing/using/involving a life that would have never been there in the first place and that would and will never be aware of any of that is morally a draw, as long you see a Zygote as person. This draw is not created by science, as science would argue that a full grown sexually mature human has more evolutionary value than an unaware, undeveloped Zygote (Round 1, 1 | Scientific approach), this is a conflict created by morals. Part 2 ConclusionI have shown * that there are scientifically good reasons to not consider a Zygote a person* that it would be legally highly problematic to consider a Zygote a person, as** we have no realistic solution for the resulting paradoxWe have not fully/properly discussed or clarified* that there are good moral reasons to consider it a person, as** equality and discrimination are a daily process of evaluation in law routine and not wrong/or right itself** we cannot properly separate our moral responsibility for the the mother and the unbornI want to thank my opponent as well, I learned more than I expected (no offense, please) . It really was a pleasure debating you. Thanks also to the judges who will have to take the time to read, think and vote. You are making this work. THANKS.