Roe v. Wade (the case which legalized abortion) should be held up.

Pro posted this;" In summary of my opponents arguments, I will trust that I will be corrected if I am mistaken:"1. The definitions of "pro-life" and "pro-choice" have been conceded as useful but often deceptive labels with regard to the important questions of this debate.True. 2. The status of "life" to a fetus is distinct from one's ability to label other organs (such as the appendix) as human life. A a human fetus is a complete organism and 'other organs' are not... I'm not sure that my opponent yet appreciates the distinctions that must be drawn between the two. 3. The concession has been made that "life" and "personhood" are distinct qualities of any substance, organismic or otherwise. To my opponent, Pro. I have made no such 'concession.' That is, I agree that 'life' is a distinct quality for any living thing. However, I have not been queried by you during this debate on the rest. I never made the claim that "personhood is a distinct quality of any substance, organismic or otherwise.'' 4. The definition of a human person can be said to be (at least legally) the same as a "human being," which has been proposed as an an appropriate extrapolation from the status of "human life" to determine the validity of Roe v. Wade. At least!5. Science has not run into a problem making a determination of where a human person's body ends and a fetus' body ends. This is a fair summary of what I said. Yes.6. We do know when a human person emerges during the nine month process of pregnancy (claimed but not justified until later rounds).This too is a fair summary of what I said. Yes.7. The concession that unique and distinct DNA is not grounds for establishing unique and distinct personhood.My opponent has it close but not quite right in this summary. I concede that "unique and distinct DNA ALONE is not grounds for establishing unique and distinct personhood. " In as mush as I can agree that it takes more than just DNA to establish the personhood of a prenatal child, I can not ignore the significance of DNA and the role it plays in determining the child's identity as being an individual being that can be distinguished from all others. 8. Concession that the establishment of fetal personhood must be adequately shown to provide the government with a significant interest in banning the termination of a pregnancy.Again, Con has this only partially correct. As the United States Supreme Court posited in Roe, "were it to be determined that a human fetus is a person, the proponents for abortion would have a very difficult case to prove" (paraphrased) [8] The court did not say that the establishment of personhood for prenatal children would be required in order for the court to ban abortions. They only indicated that it would make it much more difficult to keep abortions legal.9. There is no reason to believe that the growth of a fetus is a gradual progression, but instead is something that happens instantaneously at conception.False. I challenge Pro to provide a quote of any comments that I have made to support that claim. Of course, a person's growth and aging begins at conception and in fact carrys on for many years beyond the pregnancy [9]. "Aging begins at conception and terminates at death. As we progress through life and its four major states: 1. conception and birth, 2. puberty and adolescence, 3. adulthood and 4. senescence, we realize and experience the fact that the human body is biologically changing. It is growing, changing and aging." I struggle to see how Pro (in his ninth comment) could make such a conclusion from anything I have posted thus far. 10. Laws such as "Laci and Conner's" law which supposedly establishes the personhood of a child in the womb.Close again. My view would be correctly summarized as; "Laws such as "Laci and Conner's Law" (by making the unjust killing of child in the womb a crime of murder) have effectively established the personhood of children in the womb."Pro added: "At the risk of sounding redundant, I will point out the extraordinary number of concessions that have been made between two individuals who disagree on what has become so vitriolic among some individuals: (1) Pro-choice and pro-life, while they are useful at denoting different policy preferences, are deceptive; (2) life and personhood are distinct characteristics, and that personhood requires life but life does not require personhood; (3) unique and distinct DNA is not sufficient in and of itself to establishing personhood; (4) the establishment of a fetus' personhood not be dependent on inappropriate applications of religious law."That was a much better summary, Pro. It seems you have that part right, despite some of the corrections I had to make to some of the individual itemized conclusions that you had drawn. Pro continued with: "In Response to Non-Conceded Premises:1. "... My opponent has claimed that a fetus is "an entire organism in and of itself" while not recognizing that the entirety of an organism ipso facto requires the basic biological functions of breathing, digesting, a beating heart, etc. While a fetus may in fact be able to perform some of these necessary functions before birth, the entirety of its organismic status cannot possibly be rectified with its inability to survive naturally on its own (viability)."I remind my opponent of the link to Planned Parenthood's Glossary that I shared in R1. Planned Parenthood (no friend to Con in this debate) correctly recognizes that human being in the zygote, embryo and fetal stages of their life as a human 'organism' [2] [3].Pro added; "An (human) embryo living in a petri dish is in fact human life, but is in no way a full organism nor can it be said to have personhood, which has been admitted to be the relevant question in the legislative abortion debate."As mentioned earlier, I have already shared links to Planned Parenthood's Glossary [2] [3] which seriously undermines Pro's claims that a human embryo is not a complete organism. Because we have only one more round left after this one, I will add an appeal to Pro to consider the fact that human beings are 'placental mammals.' As such, our young [10] are carried in the mother's body [11] until they are delivered from the womb. Biologically speaking, it was your conception (the moment that created your DNA) that makes your father your biological 'father.' (click here for further discussion; http://debate.org... )Pro concluded with; "My opponent has failed to recognize the inappropriateness of ascribing "life" variably with "organismicentirety." Thus, the appendix is "alive" in the sense that it is a construction of the basic tenets of physiological "life," but its personhood is not able to be even conceptually extrapolated from such a fact. "Unlike an appendix, a human being in the first days of their life CAN be determined to be a complete organism. I ask Pro to consider the fact that an amoeba (for example) is a complete and living organism too. And the fact is that all an amoeba will ever be is a single celled organism [12].Human organisms (beings) do not morph out of something that is less than a human being and into something which is. A human being in the first days of their life is the 'young' of the parents who created them [10]. As I explained before, conception is when your father became your biological father. It is when your DNA that gives you all your traits and characteristics was first determined. It is when your aging began [9]. It seems that logic would follow that all of these things indicate that "conception" therefore is also the moment that 'you' first became 'you.'[9] http://snl.depaul.edu... [10] http://dictionary.reference.com...[11] http://www.superglossary.com...[12] http://dictionary.reference.com...