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

Thanks to Pro for staying on point in this debate and for focusing on the arguments and not the person or agenda.My opponent apparently still believes even after our exchange that the Roe v Wade ruling should be upheld. That's fine though I personally disagree more now than I did before we started. In this debate, Pro had the burden of proving why Roe should be upheld. I (Con) had the burden of proving why Roe should not be upheld. The debate eventually came to our fundamental disagreement on personhood [8]. As Pro noted in early R1; "The ultimate question is explicated by Berger and Zijderveld as, "When in the nine-month trajectory of pregnancy does a human person emerge?" There is a simple and yet unsatisfying answer to that question we don't know."In my attempts to answer the question of personhood for Pro, I provided several links to support my comments. These included, links which show the Legal Definition [4] for a human person would not exclude a child in the womb. A legal definition for Laci and Conner's Law [6] which effectively recognizes children in the womb as legal 'persons' by making it the crime of murder [7] to unjustly kill one. I provided a link to show that the child's aging begins at conception [9]. Links to prove that a child in the first days of their development is a human organism [2] [3]. That they are not a 'part of' their mother's body (like her appendix is) but they are in fact separated from her body by the Placenta [2]... and so on.Pros final arguments seem to be more about finding contradictions in my own comments and less about refuting the information in the links that I listed above. Example; Concerning the Inapplicability of the Above Normative Statements & The Appropriate QuestionPros said: "The question is of "personhood" and this can be said to be agreed upon by legislative assemblies which have dubiously labeled anti-abortion bills "Personhood Amendments." Life and personhood are inextricably distinct concepts in theory and in the actuality of worldly substances of which "life" and "persons" are constructed."I (Con) agree with Pro that the question is one of "personhood" and I added that it is also about when and how personhood begins. (R1)"Pro see that as "The concession has been made that "life" and "personhood" are distinct qualities of any substance, organismic or otherwise." (R2)"When I tried to (again) clarify my position, with this: "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.(R2) '' Pro concludes; "No objection was made to the clear distinction between life and personhood, as seen in the concession that the appropriate question is of personhood and not life. Con seems to have backpedaled on this issue.(R3)" 1. The original claim by Pro was that "the question is of personhood. (R1)"2. I agreed. And I added that it is also about "when and how personhood begins.(R1)"3. Instead of simply debating what I added, Pro decided to portray my comments as a complete concession by posting "The concession has been made that "life" and "personhood" are distinct qualities of any substance, organismic or otherwise." (R2)"4. After I tried to set the record straight again with "I never made the claim that "personhood is a distinct quality of any substance, organismic or otherwise...(R2)''5. Pro quipped; "No objection was made to the clear distinction between life and personhood, as seen in the concession that the appropriate question is of personhood and not life. Con seems to have backpedaled on this issue."In my opinion, it should not have been this difficult for both of us to agree that the "Question is of Personhood" and also about "When and How personhood begins."Going forward, Pro seems to be fixated upon pointing out all the aspects that we agree with each other on and pointing them out as 'concessions' on my part. However, if we both agree on these things, is Pro not conceding as well? I think it's great that we have some common ground. I ask Pro to accept it as such and to try to see it as something other than a concession. Pro indicated that: "Con has made the distinction between the effective establishment of personhood in connected but distinct legislation, but failed to take into account my point in round 2 of the inconsistency of laws and legislation making no benefit to either side of the normative debate."I will happily address those remarks now. In round 2 Pro said: "our laws are grossly inconsistent when it comes to this issue, which can probably be ascribed to the continuous ambiguity of the definition of a human person. However, this is a debate on Roe v. Wade in the normative sense. These laws, you are correct, are all interrelated and are often contradictory. However, inconsistent laws do not necessarily go to the advantage of pro-life or pro-choice, as can be seen by both sides ability to point to grossly inconsistent legislation..."To Pro, I would say that we again can agree on some aspects of the above. However, My arguments were not based on the laws or conclusions of Laci and Conner's law but on the "legal definitions" of 'Children in the womb' instead.To Pros point "inconsistent laws do not necessarily go to the advantage of pro-life or pro-choice" I am inclined to agree. However, I would have liked for Pro to have addressed the legal definition and to explain how it does not support the anti-abortion / pro-life claims that a child in the womb is a person.; "... 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." ~ Laci and Conner's LawPro stated: "Con has failed to reconcile this accurate description of human development with his belief that personhood can be said to be granted instantaneously at the moment at which an egg is fertilized by a specific sperm."I direct Pros and the readers attention again to the legal definitions for Laci's and Conner's Law, the links I posted earlier on the Legal Definition for "person." The links to definitions of "young" "organisms" and "aging" and I ask what more does a person require to see that a child is a person and that their life as the Young of their parents begins at conception?It's clear that we who oppose abortion see a child in the womb as "a living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently " [13] and Pro along with many defenders of abortion see a child as less than a person ONLY because the child has not developed past an arbitrarily decided point (viability?) whereafter, Pro can't deny that they are persons anymore. The legal definitions I provided earlier does not exclude a child in the womb from personhood in the way that Pro and his criteria does. Pro added: "Con's inference from the creation of my DNA to the personhood of myself while a fetus has failed to be consistent with his concession that DNA alone cannot establish personhood."I beg to differ. The readers will not that I have not argued that DNA ALONE determines personhood. To the contrary, DNA was only used to support my many other reasons for concluding that a child's personhood (and life) begins at conception. I will conclude. Pro said; "I concede that "conception is when your father became your biological father." Con must provide a reason why this is able to be extrapolated to full and complete personhood. " To Pro, I would say that while I do find that fact compelling on it's own. It is to be considered along with the many other facts that I've provided. Facts that (when combined) support my claim that a child in the womb is a Person and as such is entitled to the protections of our laws. [13] http://www.hyperdic.net...