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

I urge all potential judges to vote based on the arguments presented, not their personal opinions either way. I will respond along the same ten points delineated by Pro, to make for easier reading for the floor. Before I do that, however, I would like to point out a few things: 1) I have begged Pro, the entire round, to describe why the standard should be at conception instead of cognition, a standard which I defend with evidence and argumentation, with philosophy and biology. We literally never get a reason that the standard should be at conception, except for legislation and legal rulings that have been contradicted. Pro cannot win on this. 2) Note the difference between my source material and Pro's. My source material is impartial material, which substantiates my more controversial claim. Every single time Pro tries to make a controversial claim, he turns to unreliable sources like the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person, under the auspices of the Archdiocese of New York [1], or some random picture from some unclear source that proves nothing whatsoever [Pro's source 10]. This means that Pro relies on assertion, by and large. 3) A final reminder, Pro has the sole BOP, as I previously stated, to prove that fetuses are human beings in both the biological and philosophical sense. Rebuttals/Arguments#1: Pro claims that I have not sought a concurrence on what a full human is. By this, I clearly mean a human being, which is understood (as I have claimed the entire debate) as having the same characteristics and protects as you and I. This is not a difficult point. Perhaps more tellingly, Pro's argument here:"The LEGAL definition for a NATURAL PERSON is simply a "human being"is circular logic that does not seek to examine what a human being actually is. Moreover, the only source material that Pro has to support his claim that human life is the same at conception as at birth is, again, the Westchester Institute. This is not sufficient proof. Pro's other grasp here is fetal homicide laws. Note, again, that different states have different rules, and the standard is by no means universal. Pro cannot hinge an argument on laws that are not universal in any sense. Plus, since abortion is, in fact, legal, it is clear that the law does not see fetuses the same as human beings. Again, a mother could not kill a born child for any reason, but she could kill a fetus for any reason. Remember, I have claimed, the entire round, that fetuses have human DNA, and will develop into human beings. My logic for this has been clear, and I will further expound later. #2: I claimed here that Pro needs to examine the underlying biology and philosophy behind the law, since the laws are, in fact, divided on the issue. I suppose, and has been clear the entire round, Pro is uninterested in this, despite the fact that the round hinges on it. That's why I claimed that Pro needs to delve into the SHOULD. He hasn't, and, with that in mind, he cannot win the round. #3: As my previous arguments and source material attest, the law is split on this matter. By legal sense, I was delving into the philosophy of law, something Pro never bothered to wade into. Moreover, Pro's claim about the US patent laws only state that the embryos have human DNA. A human being is simply never mentioned in the document. A quick ctrl+f on Pro's fourth source will reveal this. #4? #5: To dismiss my claim that the Court did not rule fetuses as human beings, Pro literally repeats the text I cited. Note, the text said that the question of personhood was irrelevant to the case, as the Court ruled that a state could restrict the destruction of a fetus. Pro's quote reinforces this idea. The Court just simply has not ruled what Pro would have you believe, and the decision buttresses this. #6: Right off the bat, regardless of any further language, the fact that the California statute, along with 15 other fetal homicide laws (as you will find in my earlier source material) explicitly denotes fetuses as separate from human beings is telling. But, to play ball with another of Pro's semantic games, fellow could be explained by 1) Fellow, as in having human DNA, or 2) Fellow, as in being alive. The fact that the dichotomy is explicitly codified is important; fetuses can be fellow, but different. #7: This is funny. Pro cites a source which deals with anencephalia [Pro's source 8]. Here is a critical passage from that source: "They will never be able to think or achieve what is called "personhood. ""There it is, in black and white. They will never be persons, which I have defined as the same as a "human being. " The source even notes, with disdain, the previous Court rulings, noting the concordance among bioethicists about the need for a change in the ruling. Pro's source actually supports my position. #8: Con offers anecdotal evidence here, feigning disgust, despite the legal rulings and medical definitions which affirm my position, that a braindead person is really dead, and has ceased being a human being [2]. I sincerely apologize that Pro had to endure such a difficult situation, but a braindead person really is dead. I do not know whether your wife's cardiac arrest caused such a prognosis; if she were declared braindead, the medicine and the law agree. The importance of this argument is that braindead patients, like fetuses, lack sentience, lack cognition, but have living human tissue. The law and the medicine are clear, and Pro has decided not to engage. #9: Readers, I am sorry about another semantic game. A fetus clearly ages with respect to time, as they exist, they age in the biological sense. However, Pro was making an argument regarding LEGAL age, which fetuses do not have. Either way, this point is a non-starter. #10: Well, the one response Pro can give here is a random picture. I think that speaks to the defense he can feasibly mount here. I have not played a semantics game with regard to the definition of a human being; I have held a continuous standard, which, in earlier arguments, I substantiated with extensive evidence, both scientific and philosophical. The line is not arbitrary; in fact, it is quite clear. When a fetus has cognitive abilities, they are a human being. A note here: Pro has never actually provided evidence for his view. Pro believes a lot of things, Pro claims a lot of things, and Pro asserts a lot of things. However, he has, not one time, provided biological evidence that substantiates his view, other than a clearly-biased source. I respect the passion with which Pro argues, but note the complete lack of actual, logical argumentation. ConclusionI just spend some time rebutting individual arguments, but here I would like to present a big picture of what this round has been about. We have argued about two distinct areas: philosophy and biology. With regards to philosophy, I have demonstrated that the law is split on the issue of fetal personhood, and that we cannot make judgements based upon this, since either side can pull another law or ruling. However, if we want to appeal to the status quo, I noted that abortions ARE universally legal before the 20th week, which means that, from a legal perspective, fetuses are not human beings like you and I. However, the more important philosophical note is that I have shown that personhood is about rights and protections, which are derived from cognition. If cognition is not present, there is simply nothing to protect, no human being to give derivative rights claims to. Pro has simply never offered a competing standard, and he therefore loses this side of the argument, since he has the BOP. With regards to biology, I have shown that brain development, which is required for both definitions of human beings I presented, and Pro consented to, only arises sufficiently around the 22nd week of fetal development. Pro begs the question repeatedly, claiming that a fetus and a born child just are the same. They just are. This standard cannot stand. I have shown that a meaningful change occurs during fetal development, where a fetus transforms to a human being. This is a change in status, not in DNA. Pro cannot seem to grasp this. This debate has often been sidetracked by semantics, conflicting sources, and assertions. But, with the above criteria set out, I simply see no way Pro could have met his BOP in this round. In fact, I would argue that my points have been more convincing, better argued, and more substantively sourced. Therefore, I urge the floor to side with Con. Thank you, Pro, for this interesting, passionate debate, and for initializing the challenge in the first place. I hope I have been a worthy opponent, and that perhaps we have both become more aware of the opposing views in this debate. Sources1. . http://www.catholicnewsagency.com...2. . http://www.medscape.com...*Most source material from Pro or cited earlier*