DDO Tournament Debate: Zygotes Should be Recognized as Persons

Thanks to Con for the compliment and her opening arguments.RebuttalsUsing Con's numbering system:1.0 Scientific ApproachCon agrees that zygotes are unique human organisms:Zygote: "represents the first stage in the development of a genetically unique organism"1.1 Development StageThe law of identity states that 'A' is 'A' [7]. Thus the unborn is a member of the Homo Sapiens species or it is not. Here Con is attempting to imply that the zygote is not really human because it is only in the first stage of being human and it will undergo much change. There are two fallacies at play here. Con uses technical medical terminology to imply the unborn are not human. Yet, terms like zygote, blastocyst or fetus are merely descriptors of developmental stage like toddler or teenager. Nor do zygotes develop into a random variety of species. Two humans will have a human zygote, and not a tree, fly or ape zygote.The second fallacy being employed is that greater development grants rights. This concept is incompatible with that of inalienable rights discussed last round. Logically, if additional development grants greater rights, then the amount of rights must depend on the amount of development. Thus an adult deserves greater (unequal) "human rights" in comparison to babies, or even other adults who never developed limbs due to thalidomide as both these groups are less developed. As this is philosophically unsound the argument is nullified.Con goes on to state that many zygotes will not live until birth. This is the equivalent of saying that babies that are born with congenital defects, and have a low prognosis of living more than a month, are not worthy of human rights. A high death rate does not invalidate their being members of the species or being persons.1.2 IndividualityA) DNACon essentially argues that at the zygote stage both a chimp and a human are visually the same and that the only difference is that there is a slight variation in DNA. Once again we note that the law of identity notes that one is a chimp and the other a human and thus they are not the same. (Please do not think that I am accusing Con of being racist) This is, ironically, the same argument that was used under slavery to attempt to dehumanize blacks. They were just like monkeys or chimps. Sadly some still have a discriminatory attitude today: Attempting to dehumanize people based on arbitrary similarities to non-humans is always wrong.B) Identical TwinsThis is a an intelligent argument by Con that asks a good question because it exposes an exception to the norm. However, it does not expose an exception to the norm in terms of zygotes being human beings, but an exception to the norm of reproduction. While the human race is dependent on sexual reproduction for its continued existence, due to the totipotent nature of the zygote, asexual reproduction is also possible means of human reproduction for a limited period in every person's life.1.3 PotentialA) Assurance of OutcomeCon argues that there is no guarantee that the unborn will live to birth. There is no guarantee that people who have heart disease will survive long either, and yet we do not deny that they are persons.Con further argues that we do not know that they will not grow up to be mass murderers or even politicians (ha!). This is an unknown about everyone. Yet, we even acknowledge mass murderers and politicians as persons (yes, even them).B) In-VitroIt is not about what in-vitro means to personhood, but what does personhood mean to in-vitro? The fact that we have the ability to expose the male and female gametes to interaction in an artificial environment does not deny that their joining is the beginning of a new human life. Instead, we should be asking why are we so cavalier with newly formed human life that we feel that we are entitled to treat it as a commodity to be bought and sold.2.0 Practical ApproachIn this section we find that Con's arguments are anything, but practical. They are means of attempting to justify why it is okay to deny fundamental rights to unborn human beings.Her first argument is one of relativism in that different personal ethics should govern. This is an opinion based on whim and a poor basis for law. If law is to be just it must be based on solid facts and principles. We do not say that slavery was okay because it was considered ethical by a significant portion of the population at one time.Con furthered my argument by stating: "the most basic right any person gets: the right to live." Though, I would argue that we do not legally ensure people's survival, but that we legally protect their rights, which has the effect of helping them survive.2.1 Paradoxesa) Part of Woman's BodyPro states that we can assume the unborn "is part of the mother's body". This is completely false as it was shown to be a unique organism.b) Number of cellsCon argues that just one cell cannot be a person because an adult has so many more cells. Is Con going to argue that the morbidly obese are more human than a premie? The number of cells in a human being makes them no more or less a unique human organism.c) Two people at onceI see no difficulty in this. One person who lives inside another for a part of their existence. It is like saying I don't understand how one can draw one square inside another.d) One or both parties dyingThat one party is dependent on the other party for survival does not deny personhood. Different ages have different levels of dependency. A baby is just as dependent on others for survival. Heck, if you dropped me naked with no tools in the middle of the woods, I'd die in a few days as well.2.2 Evaluation & AbortionIn this section Con asserts that we cannot grant personhood to zygotes because of the consequences. This is analogous to the slave owners (see how often the parallel comes up) arguing that slaves are necessary for the economic viability of the cotton fields. This is not justice, nor is it sound reasoning for creating law. a) Philosophical Mess Con argues that pregnancy is a philosophical mess and that Personhood just makes it worse. It is only a mess because Con is trying to justify a philosophically unsustainable position. My arguments are very straight forward philosophically. 'A' is 'A' - a zygote is a unique human organism. All humans are persons. We inherently know this because we refer to our fundamental rights as Human Rights. It is only though denial of solid facts that this issue becomes a philosophical quagmire.b) Religion/EthicsCon attempts obfuscate this debate into one on religion or personal ethics. Yet the arguments presented have been about scientific fact, logic and fundamental rights inherent to a just legal system. When dealing with the possible murder of human beings one must always err on the side of caution in the same manner that when you go hunting you are required to visually verify your prey it is not another human.c) Affects Personhood of WomenI see no way how acknowledging the personhood of the unborn lessens the personhood of women. This has not been established by Con.d) Benefits for SocietyCon is arguing some unspecified form of utilitarianism just as cotton field owners would have 200 years ago. Truth and just laws, that are in keeping with facts, protect the rights of the citizenry and will ultimately create a just and prosperous nation. Laws based on lies or error are fundamentally unjust and injustice always results in harm.Con is correct that Personhood is a man-made term. This is why it is only be necessary as a superset descriptor to humanity. However, legalities require a definition of who is a person.ConclusionI believe that I have refuted everyone of my worthy opponent's arguments in this round while reinforcing my main contentions of:• Zygotes are Unique Human Organisms• Equality of All Humans Before the Law• Personhood is a Superset of Humanity• The Unborn are Victims of DiscriminationI look forward to Con's new arguments.[7] http://tinyurl.com...