The Unborn Are Persons From Fertilization

I will lead off with my argument in this round, but first a few definitions/terms. This debate will be about when "personhood" should be assigned to a human entity (either while unborn, at birth, or some point after birth). My position is that the unborn should be assigned "personhood," that is, basic human rights including the right to life, at fertilization. In order to win this debate, Elvroid must either show why my qualification for personhood fails, or offer his own qualification and show why his should be accepted in lieu of mine. I generally dislike using the term "person", as it is a term that allows for the legal discrimination of a group of humans. It has been used to discriminate against Jews by the Germans in the Holocaust, and it has been used to discriminate against blacks in the United States by allowing them to be slaves and/or killed without moral justification. I should also point out that when I use the word "value," it means that an entity's life should be protected. As in, the unborn are as valuable as we are and therefore should have the same right to life we enjoy. I will now make my case. I will put my argument in the form of a syllogism and then support my premises with evidence. Premise 1: From fertilization, the preborn are biological members of humanity. Premise 2: All members of humanity are intrinsically valuable based on the kind of thing they are, humans. Premise 3: It is prima facie wrong to kill an innocent human being. Premise 4: Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is generally immoral. Premise 1Embryologists, who are the experts in the field, consistently agree that life begins at fertilization. For example, from the most-used textbook on embryology, the authors note: "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte. " [1]Here's another example:"Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual. " [2] And another: "Human embryos begin development following the fusion of definitive male and female gametes during fertilization. .. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development. " [3]On top of that, the more sophisticated pro-choice philosophers, like Judith Jarvis Thompson (who came up with the famous analogy of the violinist), and Peter Singer, accept the full humanity of the preborn. Peter Singer has noted, “It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being. ” [4]It's simply common sense. We know the preborn are alive because they grow. Non-living and dead things don't grow. They also exhibit other signs of life including metabolism and cell division. The preborn have human DNA, and they are the product of human parents. Creatures reproduce after their own kind; dogs have dogs, cats have cats, and humans have humans. At no point in human development is a member of humanity a "non-human. "This is also different from saying that a hair follicle has human DNA, so it is wrong to pluck them out. Zygotes/embryos/fetuses are unique individual humans, developing from within, made up of all the individual parts. A hair follicle must stay plugged in to the parent organism to function. However, the parent organism can still function even if he/she loses parts of their body. The zygote/embryo/fetus is a full human organism made up of individual parts of which it develops from within, not constructed like a car. The pro-life position is that life begins at fertilization, which is supported by science. The pro-choice position places "human life" at certain arbitrary points which change from human to human. The pro-life position is the only consistent one. Premise 2Human value is an intrinsic value, not an instrumental one. Most people agree that humans outside the womb are valuable and should be protected. People decry the loss of innocent human life, especially when those lives lost are children. Human value is not something we get in degrees, it's something we either have or don't have. A pre-born human is just as valuable as a born human, and any reason used to rationalize abortion due to the preborn human being "different" leads to discrimination and would allow us to discriminate against someone outside the womb who fits those same characteristics. Premise 3When I say the preborn are innocent human beings, I am not talking "spiritually" innocent, but physically innocent. They have committed no crime, and certainly not anything worthy of being killed for it. The only thing they have done is exist, and in the vast majority of cases it was through a consensual action of two people. If two people engage in a consensual act that results in the creation of a new, needy human life, they bear a responsibility to care for that life. Premise 4Every abortion takes the life of a new, unique, living member of humanity, which has an intrinsic value just based on being human. Abortions take the life of an innocent, unique human being and is therefore immoral. My contention is that because the preborn are biological members of humanity, and killing an innocent member of humanity is wrong, then killing an unborn human being is likewise wrong. The resolution stands affirmed. Thank you for reading and I look forward to Con's response. [1] Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8. [2] Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. p. 16. [3] William J. Larsen, Essentials of Human Embryology, New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998. p. 1[4] Peter Singer,Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 85-86.