The Unborn Are Persons From Fertilization

Con talks about what the "Universe" cares about, but this is irrelevant. Even though people die in natural disasters, this doesn't justify committing murder. Natural disasters are just that; natural. They make not distinction between living creature or natural structure. I have already justified my position on what the unborn deserve a right to life and Con has not actually challenged it. In fact, he hasn't challenged a single premise of my original argument, so it stands. Con tries to make a distinction between "capacity" and "reality," but his distinction fails. His pockt has the capacity to hold money. The reality is that his pocket has the capacity to hold money. His pocket does not have the potential to hold money, because that's what his pocket actually does. His pocket does have the potential to have money in it, but the ability to hold money is not a potential. It's an actual. As such, the unborn are actual humans, but potential toddlers. As the unborn are actual humans, they have the inherent capacity as rational, moral creatures. They don't have the actual ability, they have the potential for it. But the reality is they have the capacity for it, and given the chance to continue on their natural course of development they will eventually have the actual ability for it. I'm not sure how we would treat A. I. 's that appear like humans in the future. They may not have a right to life because unlike us, they don't have the inherent capacity as moral, rational creatures. They will still be machines. How would you be actually be able to know if they are really moral, rational creatures or merely acting within the programming and mimicking rationality? At any rate, we don't have an obligation to bringing potential life into the world. If the only way for these A. I. 's to reproduce would be to construct a new one, we have no obligation to do so, just like we have no obligation to use the cells in our bodies to clone other humans. We have no obligation to potentiality. This is different than the unborn, because they are actual humans, so we do have an obligation to care for them. However, we can morally use contraception to prevent conception of a new human because you can't harm a being that doesn't exist. Con's argumet about "breeding seasons" is bizarre. First, appealing to other animals' breeding seasons to look at us is an argument from nature, a logical fallacy. Just because it occurs in nature does not mean we must follow the same pattern. Second, pro-lifers don't imply that humans follow a breeding season. Any time a couple has sex it could lead to pregnancy; we know this from observation. With sex comes the possibility of pregnancy, so whenever a couple has sexual relations they should be aware of this fact. Con states that "sex causes pregnancy" is not a fact. One might ask Con how he believes people get pregnant. His argument from the number of heterosexual couples getting pregnant, despite the fact that he didn't source it so I don't think we can accept it as true, is irrelevant. Some couples take years before they conceive their first child; some are never able to conceive. This doesn't mean that sex doesn't cause pregnanct. Not everyone breaks out in acne from eating chocolate, but chocolate is still a cause of acne (I can attest to this). Whether the egg "chooses" to get fertilized or not is irrelevant. The act of sex is what results in the woman becoming pregnant. The only way to completely ensure she doesn't become pregnant is to abstain, as couples do get pregnant even using contraceptives. Con actually helps to make my case here. The zygote is a new living [human] organism. As such, they deserve to be protected (as I have made my case elsewhere). I have already made my case that the unborn are new, unique living human organisms, and deserve a right to life. Con has not argued against my criteria, and he has not argued against any of my premises. As such, my argument stands. Thanks again to Con for debating this with me.