A human being in the Zygote, Embryo and Fetal stage of their life is "a human being"

Thanks again to my opponent (Con) for his/her interesting response in R2. I'm sorry for the rocky start to our debate. I'm also sorry that my opponent thought this was to be a debate about "personhood in the legal sense, as related to abortion." Though I was not able to provide definitions and an outline in R1, I thought that Con would understand from the title of the debate and from my clarification in R1 - that he/she is being challenged on his / her denial about the biological facts. My comments in R1 was only an attempt to clarify my original intent for this debate. It was not an attempt to "fiat a new debate topic." That said, I do not fault Con for trying to take advantage of the wide parameters of my poorly framed challenge. I would have likely done the same. So now, in the interest of fairness, I will address some of Con's denials about the legal and the biological facts about "human beings" who are in the Zygote, Embryo and Fetal stages of their life, growth and development. Con claims in R2 that I had "not defined what a human being is." Though my link was broken in R1 - I did in fact try to provide a definition for his/her consideration. I have no idea about why the link did not work. However, I find it curious - that my opponent (or anybody else) would DENY that a human being in the Zygote, Embryo or Fetal stage of their life is "a human being" without already knowing what the biological and legal definitions are. Con then proceeded to select and to provide comments, definitions and sources to support Con's denials about human beings in the Zygotes, Embryo or Fetal stages of their life being recognized as "human beings" and especially as "persons." At a risk of letting this debate devolve into a purely semantic argument, I will address the definitions my opponent selected and used to support his/ her denials. By using some of Con's (previously provided) definitions and sources along with some additional information of my own, I will show that a human being even in the earliest stages of their life and development ARE factually biological "human beings." I will then provide LEGAL definitions to show how human being's in those stages are already being legally recognized and defined as "human beings" in our current laws. To save space and due to character limitations, I will not be quoting entire definitions and legal text. Sources will be provided at the bottom of this round for those who want to explore them further. (Beginning with the definition provided by Con in R2. ) Human being:"A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance." [1]. (emphasis is mine) Using Con's own (provided) source, we can find the following: Child:[2]"A son or daughter of any age."The logical conclusion is this - "A son or daughter of any age" is a Child and by the definition provided by Con - they are in fact 'a human being.'Because the language of that definition closely follows the 'legal' definitions that I have found - I would like to present that legal definition now. Under Federal Law 18 U.S. Code § 1841"the term "unborn child" means a child in utero, and the term "child in utero" or "child, who is in utero" means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." [3] That same Federal law makes says: "If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111 (murder)[4], 1112 (manslaughter) [5], and 1113 (attempted murder/ manslaughter) [6] of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.Of Course, Con will now try to point out the language in this (and other) fetal homicide laws that makes exceptions to (for now) keep abortions legal. However, that language speaks only towards the prohibition of using fetal homicide laws to prosecute women who choose to have an abortion. The language does NOT support Con's denial of the fact that a child in utero "in any stage of development" is "a human being."In R2, Con argues almost convincingly - that "being human is about cognitive abilities, from which mental development and articulate speech come from, and from which we develop rights claims[R2-3]." However, Con's provided source on "Human Development" itself indicates that the development of an already existing human being - "from a cell to a newborn infant in nine months" begins at fertilization. [7] It's clear that my opponent thinks that a human being - developing in the womb - is not a human being - because that development is not complete. So, he / she sees a human being in the fetal stage of their life as "a human being that is being developed" rather than as an existing "human being" that is simply developing further and further towards their maturity.Hopefully, our fetal homicide laws (cited above) will give Con good reason to revisit his /her conclusions on that. In R2, my opponent agrees that "a (human) fetus is alive, and that is has human DNA." So, to my opponent I ask the following. 1. Aren't all living things "living beings"- Living existences [8]? 2. If you can agree that a being in the fetal stage of their life is "a living being..." then what kind of being is it - if it (according to you) is NOT a 'human' being? In R2, Con says: "My opponent appears to be conflating living human tissue with a human being. This is the key problem with Pro's argument, and is one that cannot be resolved. " Obviously, Con believes his /her own denials but the legal and scientific references (some provided by Con) prove otherwise. It can be resolved and despite my opponent's claims to the contrary - I believe the evidence shows that it already HAS been resolved. When we have multitudes of persons already charged and convicted for crimes (like murder) against 'children in the womb' and those convictions are being upheld by our Supreme Court [9], how has it not been established that a 'child in the womb' is 'a human being?' In conclusion of this round, I would like to apologize for my opponent's conduct and inflammatory rhetoric last round. His /her allegations of "ridiculous, unfair semantic shifts and incongruous, unsubstantiated arguments" is neither called for nor productive. I ask our readers and followers to remain objective as they decide each for themselves - what is "nonsense" and what is not. As an addendum: I would like to add that even Planned Parenthood defines a Zygote [10], Embryo [11] and a Fetus [12] as an organism. Logic would dictate that human Z/E/Fs would be "human" organisms. Wouldn't it? And living "Human Organisms" are living "human beings." When abortion providers do not deny this fact [13] I have to wonder why Con or why anyone else feels the need to do so. 1. Human Being http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...2. Child http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...3. Unborn Child http://definitions.uslegal.com... 4. Murder http://www.law.cornell.edu...5. Manslaughter http://www.law.cornell.edu...6. Attempted Murder / Manslaughter http://www.law.cornell.edu...7. Timeline of Human Development http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au...8. Being http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...9. Constitutional Challenges http://www.nrlc.org...10. Zygote http://www.plannedparenthood.org...11. Embryo http://www.plannedparenthood.org...12. Fetus http://www.plannedparenthood.org...13. Am I Killing? http://youtu.be...