DDO Tournament Debate: Zygotes Should be Recognized as Persons

RebuttalsI'm going to continue to address the issues point by point and try to group them, where possible, to reduce repetition.Superset3 - Con claims that I have not established that personhood is a superset of humanity. I have logically shown through deductive reasoning that personhood is a superset of humanity. It is intuitively obvious that, if we are persons, any being who had a nature equal to, or greater than, that of humans would logically be a person.Fundamental Rights1a - Con agrees that the zygote is a human organism and thus a member of the human species, but argues that the biological facts shouldn't be the basis for law. Facts must be the basis for law, as ignoring facts can only lead to injustice. Con argues that a teenager is more sexually mature than a newborn. While true, it does not equal the teenager is more of a human than the newborn (law of identity).1b - Con later goes on to quote the UN Declaration of Human Rights. The UN is a political body in which many special interest groups influence the wording and declarations issued. Additionally, what the UN says is a true statement - everyone is born with fundamental rights. It is uncommitted on the rights of the unborn (the purpose of this debate). As previously noted, it is illogical that the same organism can have varying fundamental rights. If a right is fundamental it cannot be gained or lost, it is intrinsic to the organism.1.3 - Con has somewhat argued potential, but tried to push it aside. I am not arguing potential. I am arguing that all human beings deserve the recognition of their intrinsic rights.2.2D - Con argues that the unborn cannot be a person because there is a level of dependence. We all have varying levels of dependence on others at various stages of life. An unconscious adult with critical wounds is completely dependent for his life on those providing first aid, just like a zygote is on her mother.Note - Con's final argument is that we cannot grant the zygote the fundamental human rights because doing so may have an effect on others. This is a fallacious argument. The entire reason we have laws is to limit the application of rights between people. Con argues that because the unborn are not in a position to even recognize the rights they have, or what they may be losing, that we are justified in denying them those rights on the basis that it may affect someone else. It could then be argued that it is okay for me to steal the winning lottery ticket from Con that she had completely forgotten about. She never knew that she had won, and she'll never miss it because she didn't know about it. Thus, my theft would be perfectly justifiable. I believe that the fallacy in that reasoning is evident. The unborn's fundamental rights belong to the the child and not the mother, even if the child cannot assert her right to them.As con stated in Round 2: "That’s the most basic right any person gets: the right to live." All other rights are based on this right. If one group of humans can deny this right to another group of humans, we reduce this right to a privilege, because we have agreed that this right is not fundamental to any of us, but is merely a social custom.Slavery/DiscriminationOur own unjust discriminations are always the toughest to see. Most slave owners honestly believed they were just in their actions. Likewise we, the powerful, find it convenient and expedient to discriminate against weak, faceless, defenseless human beings and thus deny them their fundamental rights for our own personal gain.2/4a - Con argues that we cannot eliminate discrimination. While this is true, it does not mean that we enshrine egregiously unjust policies into law!Con argues that the UN Declaration of Human Rights enables the denial of liberty to criminals. This is because criminal have intentionally violated the rights of another person and are now subject to justice and possible incarceration for retribution/protection of society. As Con has argued that the unborn are not yet self-aware, we can hardly expect that they are criminally liable for anything, especially not a death sentence. Con further argues that the mentally handicapped are not permitted to drive or own a gun. These are limitations on societal privileges, not a repudiation of their fundamental human rights.4b - Slavery has to do with ownership, not production. If I can choose to kill you at any time for any reason without fear of reprisal, you are my slave. That may permit me to compel you to work, but it's not actually a requisite for slavery. That the mother incurs an obligation to the child is not in dispute - however that has nothing to do with the resolution of this debate.1.1 - Con notes that children are not allowed to drive. Again, this is a limitation on societal privileges, and not a repudiation of their fundamental rights. 1.2A - Con complains about my comparing the similarities between comparing chimp zygotes to human zygotes and how racists compared blacks to monkeys. Both are attempts to dehumanize humans by comparing them to something superficially similar. If the shoe fits...MotherAs previously stated, effects on a third party should have no bearing on the recognition and defense of the fundamental rights of anyone. However, since the judges may not agree, I will provide a brief rebuttal to these points. 2.0 Con seems to have a problem accepting that circumstances can create an obligation. It is already a legal requirement for parents to provide for the needs of their children [8] (Canadian Law as an example). Likewise, a nation may also conscript its citizens to protect the nation at the cost of their mental and physical well being.2.1 - Yes the bodies are linked. Thus the mother should be careful as to what she does, just like with a woman breastfeeding.2.2 B&C - Yes I am a male, and I have been there with difficulties/complications during pregnancy and birth with my own wife. Con makes assumptions as to what future laws would state. There are also ethical means that do not require direct abortions to save the mother's life. Ireland who did not permit abortions had 5 maternal deaths for 157k births between 1989 - 1991. Abortion would have prevented none of these deaths. [9]2.3 - Pro is essentially arguing that because someone is poor, or may be shamed that they are justified in killing an innocent third party. Nonsense. Personhood may be criminalizing - so was abolition.Miscellaneous1.2B - Con argues that I did not properly deal with twinning because I only explained the science. From the science I can deduce that the twinning process results in either a parent-child relationship or a cloning relationship between the zygotes. Both of which clearly demonstrate that the zygote was a human being before the twinning occurred. 1.3B - Con argues that personhood would have serious effects on in-vitro fertilization and embryonic stem cell research. Again, determining whether somebody has fundamental human rights on possible legal ramifications to others is immoral and the antithesis of the concept of fundamental rights. As noted in Round 3, this is analogous to saying that Blacks cannot be given human rights because of the effect it would have on cotton plantations. It is evident that these types of arguments are ludicrous. Fundamental rights must be based solely on the nature of the unborn. I have clearly illustrated why the unborn are also persons and, for the sake of justice, need to be legally recognized as such.ConclusionI have successfully defended each of my arguments• Zygotes are Unique Human Organisms• Equality of All Humans Before the Law• Personhood is a Superset of Humanity• The Unborn are Victims of Discriminationand refuted each of Con's arguments. The majority of Con's arguments were merely some form of justifying the discrimination against the youngest human beings - zygotes.I thank Con for the debate and the judges for their time.[8] http://tinyurl.com...[9] http://tinyurl.com...