Human Personhood Begins at and by Human Conception (fertilization)

Rebuttals and Responses:Natural Person:"As you can see, Pro is not burdened with the task of proving that prenatal human being's ARE 'natural persons' in this debate. Though I do contend that they are and will attempt to prove just that."Pro is indeed burdened with said task. From the previous round, I summarized the points of contention. Specifically:"Additionally, the definition of 'natural person' and the 'equal protections' clause of the 14th Amendment provides the context for interpreting #1 and #2."To which Pro responded:"Well stated."Furthermore, in R1, Pro provided the legal definition of 'natural person' and has repeatedly asserted that this debate is about the legal definition. The first round of a debate is usually used to provide the definitions of terms under which the participants will be arguing. 'Natural person' is the only legal definition Pro provided in R1. Regardless, Pro explicitly contends that they are natural persons and will be attempting to prove that. Even if it wasn't an established burden, Pro has voluntarily taken such a task upon himself.The Example of Murder:"I submit to Con the fact that a person is charged with murder under those laws for unjustly killing a child in the womb. Of course they are being recognized as 'natural persons' in the same context as the persons mentioned in the 14th Amendment. By definition, a person cannot be charged with murder for killing anything other than another 'natural person' under the law."By definition, a person cannot be charged with murder for killing anything other than that which the specific law or laws say can be a vicitim of murder. This case is illustrated by the definition linked to by Pro:"[T]he crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing another under circumstances defined by statue."[1] (emphasis mine)Ultimately, there is no universal definition of murder. Each State or jurisdiction is free to define and codify murder as they see fit, including any and all criteria necessary for the crime to have taken place. While there are general definitions of what murder is, these are summary descriptive definitions, not proscriptive ones.Other Types of Persons:"Con talked about the need to avoid equivocating and it is a point well taken. As Con noted, here in the U.S., our laws treat corporations as 'persons.' However, we cannot be charged with 'murder' for destroying a corporation. Can we? No."This illustrates my point. The fact that something is labeled as a person in a statute does not confer the status of 'natural person' or any other kind of person upon that something. Corporations are people only in the specific sense as outlined by the specific laws in which they are explicitly called out as people. They do not benefit from the protection conferred to any other kinds of people except where explicitly noted. Likewise, fetuses are people only in the specific sense as outlined by the specific laws in which they are explicitly called out as people. They do not benefit from the protection conferred to any other kinds of people except where explicitly noted. They are both legal, but not natural, persons.The 14th Amendment:"I disagree. Doesn't, the "equal protections" clause of the 14th amendment and the even greater cause of "equal rights" come with the expectation that we cannot define "persons" one way under one law to establish their rights and then to define them another way under another law as to deny them?"I agree. Therefore we can only conclude that when laws and statues do, in fact, define a person one way under one law and another way under another law then they are not using the label 'person' in the same sense as is meant by the 14th Amendment such that it is subject to its protection. Otherwise such redefinition would be disallowed as unconstitutional.But we needn't even try and apply such logic. The clause explicitly only pertains to those who are born""All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."[2] (emphasis mine).Also:"The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is said to apply to children, born within a marriage or not, but excludes children not yet born."[3]Furthermore, even if fetsuses fell under the scope of the 14th Amendment, this would not necessarily infringe upon the State's right to treat them as an exception to 'equal protection.'"Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is unconstitutional." [4] (emphasis mine)Specifically, youths and children have a restricted set of rights (smoking, driving, drinking, voting, military enlistment, employment, etc.) It would seem that States are free to discriminate based upon age in this manner, which would certainly allow for discrimination against fetuses based upon that same principle.Extended Arguments and Summary:Pro denies the implicit burden I identified, requiring Pro to not merely demonstrate that fetuses are labeled as persons, but that they are 'natural persons' as well as within the context of the 14th Amendment. Since Pro asserts that it is the legal definition that is the goal here, and since the only legal definition Pro provided in R1 was that of a 'Natural Person', I reaffirm this implicit burden.Pro acknowledges that corporations aren't 'natural persons' but has yet to demonstrate why unborn people are, when they are both treated in much the same manner (explicitly labeled as persons only in specific areas of law). This is especially pertinent given explicit assertions that they don't benefit from 14th Amendment protections.[1] http://dictionary.findlaw.com...[2] http://www.law.cornell.edu...[3] http://www.law.cornell.edu...[4] http://www.law.cornell.edu...