Abortion ought to be legal in the United States.

I do apologise - circumstances in my life are taking time away from my ability to engage in online discussions. However, I've really enjoyed debating with you, since you seem to be capable of making good points. I'll try to give a response, but I'm pressed for time and thus it may not be up to standards! Also, once again, I have to snip :( >A more clear statement would be a time line with A at the beginning and B at the end.< Indeed, but you must then provide reasoning as to why the beginning ought to be conflated with the end when it comes to moral rights. >which would make the 14th Amendment support me because there is no inequality of human-life under U.S. jurisdiction.< The Supreme Court of the United States, however, has stated that nonviable fetuses are not protected under the 14th Amendment. Hence, as a matter of law, you are incorrect. As a matter of philosophy, you still have yet to provide a defence for why we ought to reject the standard of sapience in favour of sentience. >A zygote does retain personhood< [Snip: By no reasonable standard of personhood does a zygote qualify. It can't think.] >When I defined action, I called it abortion and only in the context for which abortion could happen and in the time frame of the procedure for which an abortion would take place.< [Snip: This definition is abusive. "Action" means "state or process of doing or acting". You are redefining it to suit your argument when this common definition works well enough. By redefining it, your argument becomes circular: You demonstrate that abortion is wrong merely by asserting that such a "positive action" is wrong, when you've defined it as "abortion", and thus "abortion is wrong because abortion is wrong".] >That action is called negligence.< "Negligence", the absence of action, can be defined as an action if you like, but then all of your attacks against my examples fall. If we allow for non-action to be defined as an action so long as will it put into the equation, then the non-action in my examples qualifies to illustrate my points. >The way you have argued, the human-mind should be able to function without the need for any observable biological or chemical features-- to which I disagree.< [Snip: No. That a thing depends on another thing doesn't mean the two are conflated. I depend upon the food I eat for survival, but we cannot say that the fruit bowl I just ate is me.] >So the notion that biology does not defined personhood is botched logic.< It does not define personhood. Suppose we encounter an alien species as intelligent, capable, and dynamic as we are. They also, obviously, happen to be non-homo sapiens. Do we then have the right to treat them as property? No, because personhood is *not* defined by biology. Biology is necessary in developing personhood, but it is a distinct thing from that personhood. [Snip: If I take a road to New York City, we do not say that the road itself is New York City, but merely a path. In this case, the road is biology and New York City is personhood.] [Snip: You are conflating ideas again.] It is not enough to merely demonstrate that personhood follows the development of these biological systems, either. You must demonstrate that the two ideas are, logically, the exact same: these systems immediately result in personhood. >--I have refuted his examples of the desert, vegetarianism, etc.< You have not. In fact, you admitted your inconsistency when it comes to vegetarianism, and I have already shown why your definitions are somewhat abusive and result in your argument becoming circular. >But the right to develop into these is a protected right.< [Snip: As a matter of law, you are wrong. Morally speaking, you have simply asserted your position, rather than defended it.] Furthermore, you still do not address the regression argument: Why should the right of a sperm to develop into a human be valued any less than that of a zygote? >--I refuted the notion that I claim 'action' to be defined as only ONE thing. It clearly depends on the context.< [Snip: Your definition of action is abusive and highly nonstandard. It changes depending on the argument, and has no consistency.] >--I have now given personhood to the Zygote, which is important because Zasch's argument was grounded in the fact that there was no personhood.< Unfortunately, personhood is not something to just be "given" by fiat - that would be an abuse of definitions. I brought up the idea of personhood as encompassing several traits, and you did not dispute upon that idea in the slightest. [Snip: You offer personhood has including dead people. This is absurd, because dead people can't think or do anything.] But you offer no defence for even this bizarre definition of personhood. All you say is that: 1. Biological systems give rise to personhood, and therefore biological systems define personhood. 2. A zygote is sentient and alive, and thus a person. Argument 1, once again, is refuted by the fact that a path one takes to a thing does not define that thing. Biological systems are not the definition of personhood because personhood can exist without those biological systems (for instance, through the use of technological systems). You repeatedly claim that you are not conflating the beginning with the end, but your arguments betray the reality: You ARE conflating the zygote with the person. You ARE conflating the undeveloped brain with the developed brain. You are saying that, morally speaking, the potential for one to develop into the other means that the former *IS*, morally speaking, equivalent to the other. Biological systems are a preqreuisite to personhood in humans, but neither do they guarantee personhood nor do they logically imply personhood. The road is not the same as the destination. The second argument is one that I defeated long ago, and you did not address. Life is not a good standard for personhood because then we reach a situation where a man affectd by bacteria cannot take medications because that kills life. Sentience too is not a reasonable standard, for you yourself affirm the idea of eating animals and yet they are senitent - the argument may be amusing, but its logic is no less powerful. You have not addressed this at all, and thus your second argument fails. With both of these arguments out of the way, we must then accept the only reasonable standard of personhood that there is: sapience. If a thing posesses sapience, regardless of whether that thing is terrestrial or extraterrestrial or nonbiological, that thing is a person! When we no longer possess sapience, such as when we die, we cease to be "people". Since you are unable to either defend against my attacks on your method of assigning moral rights (as they lead to absurd and contradictory conclusions), nor are you able to effectively attack my concept of personhood (that is, why a sapience-based standard is unreasonable), then your entire case falls apart: The zygote is NOT a person by any reasonable definition, and thus the zygote is not entitled to the rights afforded to people. Whether the zygote or the sperm or the tomato will develop into one thing or another is irrelevant, because as you have repeatedly stated we cannot, morally speaking, conflate the two. If the requirement is X, and a thing doesn't have X, it doesn't matter whether the thing may or may not have X in the future...they still do not meet the requirement (the requirement, in this case, being personhood). Therefore, with zygotes now being recognised as non-persons (both in a legal and moral sense), abortion ought to be allowed. I'd like to thank my opponent for this very entertaining and respectful debate. Hopefully, in the future, we can have more such discussions! :)