Abortion ought to be legal in the United States.

I am beginning to think we have got to the point in the debate where the broken record is going to start repeating. But this is fine because we are in the final round. Much of what I saw in Zasch's closing argument was just a reiteration of what was in the second round, but this time the language was altered so that it could be implied that it was refuting what I said in my rebuttal. So here we go: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "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." – Zasch This is direct reference to my timeline. My timeline is imagery. It is mapping out where our species develops (a.k.a. lives out their lives). When it comes to applying morals there it is very simple. Another human-being cannot unethically interrupt that timeline. That is a very obvious statement. How the system is set up right now, abortion can happen lawfully. I am arguing that because it is inconsistent and unethical (the reason being that timeline argument). There is no enthical manner to stop a baby, child, adolescent, adult, or elder from living out the rest of their lives (unless one expresses desire or forfeits his or her own life through lawful means like the Death Penalty). Hence, I am arguing against the status quo. "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." –Zasch So what Zasch has pointed out is the status quo. But because we all know our history, we know that entities of government can be inconsistent with the implicit and explicit nature of the constitution. Just because the Chief Legislator takes away habeas corpus does not make it right. Even the Supreme Court has made mistakes (the ruling on Plessy v Ferguson is obviously wrong). So now does Zasch disagree with the notion of protecting human-life? Does he believe in equity of law? He absolutely does. And we both agree that it is living human-beings under U.S. jurisdiction that are endowed with the rights of the U.S. Constitution (ignoring that weird Vegetarian argument he threw in there). But we both view that human-beings part differently. But I will get to that later because I want to refute one more thing.  "[Your] 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" –Zasch When Zasch refutes the ability to redefine action it makes me scratch my head because we do it all the time. When I am playing basketball, the action can be dribble. When I am at the dinner table, the action can be eat. When I am at a restaurant the action can be eat. When I am at the scene of a crime, the action can be murder. I said this before, but I will say it again: when defining an action, it depends on the situation whether you can retain that definition or not. The situations need to retain some similarity and equating the situation of an abortion to cooking dinner lacks logic. In the end, that might all be irrelevant because both Zasch and I agree that this boils down to a personhood debate. Once one has been endowed personhood under U.S. jurisdiction, that is it, he is protected. The essential part them becomes, when is personhood attained. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is where the base of the debate is, and probably where one should decide who won. I argue that life and personhood begin at conception, whereas Zasch argues life may begin at conception, but personhood begins with sapience. First, I would just like to put out there, a Zygote is in fact alive. It has the irrefutable quality of sentience. If you can argue that something is sentient and not alive, you then have the ability to warp the fabric of logic itself. But is it a person? "[Biology] does not define personhood. Suppose we encounter an alien species as intelligent, capable, and dynamic as we are... 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." –Zasch Personhood: the state of being a person --Dictionary.com Person: a human being, whether a man, woman or child --Dictionary.com I see the defintion of personhood in the light of having the characteristics of a person. I see a person as defined as a human-being. The website dictionary.com agrees with me. It is human-beings that are governed within the context of the law, not anything that just happens to exhibit intelligence. So this argument falls outside of the context of our argument. You can argue whether dolphins or dogs should be treated as property, but we are talking about the endowed rights of human-beings. So how does development (all the way to the end of life) distinguish between the Zygote inside a woman and any other species? By its biology. By its chemistry. By undeniable logic, it is Human-Zygote. Utlizing the definitions above the Zygote has personhood. And now that we have established personhood, it is logical to say it is a person that endowed the rights of the U.S. Constitution (which include lawful, ethical protection of life). "No state shall deny to any **person** within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." –Zasch I am sorry I had to shorten my final argument. I typed it really fast because I have Russian homework due in a few moments. Good debate!