Human Personhood Begins at and by Human Conception (fertilization)

Primary Points of Contention:Based upon Pro's R1 & R2, there are the following points of contention:1. Our laws should recognize the fact that human 'personhood' begins at conception.2. Our laws, to some extent, already do recognize the fact that human 'personhood' begins at conception.And the following explicit Burdens:1. Pro will argue that the laws should and to some extend already do recognize the fact that human 'personhood' begins at conception.2. Con will argue that personhood does not and/or should not begin at conception.Additionally, the definition of 'natural person' and the 'equal protections' clause of the 14th Amendment provides the context for interpreting #1 and #2.Introduction:Before getting into specific rebuttals and arguments, there is concept I wish to introduce, as it may be relevant to this debate.EquivocationEquivocation is a logical error where the multiple meanings of a word or label are exploited in an attempt to transfer logical inferences based upon one meaning to the other, hidden behind the use of the same word or label for those meanings. The nature of this fallacy is evident in the following example[1]:A feather is light.What is light cannot be dark.Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.This is significant in this debate because while it is undeniable and inarguable that at least some states have codified laws that include unborn humans as "persons"[2], this does not mean they are persons as was meant by Pro in his opening statement or within the context of the 14th amendment or as a 'natural person'. We cannot simply look in one area and see the word "person", look in another area and see the word "person", and then conclude that they are equal and connected and that the logical implications of one can be transferred to the other. We must dig into the meanings in each case. Thus pro has an implicit burden that entails more than simply noting that some laws identify an unborn human as a "person," but must also demonstrate that such a classification falls within the general intent of the legal definitions of a person that he originally provided.Rebuttals:Pro has established a series of associations, but has yet to make these associations entirely explicit as they connect with each other and the identified contentions/burdens. Some lee way is granted for Pro to make these connections next round. However, I note that the context of this debate is the legal definition of a person, as established by statute or case law. That other people or publications - as professional or respected as they may be - are not enough to establish the burdens outlined.That said, a number of specific mentions warrant response:10 & 11: The U.S. Code (Title 1 › Chapter 1 › § 8) - As explicitly mentioned by this element of US Code, persons are defined, in part, as being born alive, and the code cannot be used to affirm or expand legal status or rights prior to being born. Pro has only highlighted the denial portion, I call attention to the affirm portion.12 & 13: This is no doubt one of many individual examples Pro will reference in the attempt to establish that existing laws, in part, already treat unborn individuals as persons. I will address such examples, on the whole, in my arguments.Argument:As stated, it is conceded that many laws, at a federal or state level will include unborn individuals in their definition of a person. However, as mentioned in the section on equivocation, this does not automatically confer the status of being a natural person, with any other protections, even within the context of those laws.Take, for example, a state law on homicide[3]:"[A person] means a human being, including an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability."Here, an unborn child is counted as a person. Case closed, right? No. Elsewhere in this same code of laws we will find:"A human being, and where appropriate, a public or private corporation, an unincorporated association, a partnership, a government, or a governmental instrumentality."[4]The latter statement appears in a general section of definitions that pertains to the entirety of the Criminal Code, whereas the former statement is a more specific definition that pertains only to homicide or assault. In context, the former definition is an exception to the latter, making the scope of the former only that specific body of law.Other areas of code, such as those of US Code already mentioned by Pro, followed the same pattern. You will have a definition at a higher level, such as with U.S. Code (Title 1 › Chapter 1 › § 8), with more specific, excepted definitions at later and lower levels, as with the excerpts provided by Pro in his 12th and 13th statements.This structure, rather than providing an inconsistent treatment of unborn individuals, or demonstrating that unborn individuals are already, in part, natural persons, actually does the opposite. Consider, in one the previous definitions of person, corporations and other types of organizations were included. This use does not confer upon them the status of "natural" person nor does it represent an inconsistency in our body of laws.Corporations are legal persons, and are separate and distinct from natural persons[1]. The purpose for defining corporations as persons in some contexts is a matter of legal practicality. Our courts and legislatures decided that it was necessary to confer certain rights and responsibilities people have to corporations. For example, corporations can sue or be sued. However, corporations are still not natural people, nor do they have all of the rights or responsibilities of natural people. They are, in essence, persons of convenience: they are persons when and under the conditions we want them to be, and no where else.Unborn individuals follow the same pattern. They have some rights and protections shared by natural people (can be victims of homicide in some states) but not others. They are, like corporations, people of convenience, and not 'natural' persons. They are persons when and under the conditions we want them to be, and no where else.Furthermore, the fact that unborn individuals must be included in a definition in order to be counted demonstrates, by implication, that they are not part of that definition on the whole, or generally. Unborn individuals are included in "person" definitions only as a matter of specific laws and statutes, and this demonstrates that they are not part of that definition under general or normal circumstances.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] "[A person] means a human being, including an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability." http://www.legislature.state.al.us...[3] http://www.law.cornell.edu...[4] http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us...