Human Personhood Begins at and by Human Conception (fertilization)

Appeal to Authority:"You are defending the status quo by citing the fact that it hasn't been ruled 'unconstitutional' (yet) as your defense. That is a classic "appeal to authority” attempt."Merely referencing an authority is not automatically a fallacy; "[N]ot all Appeals to Authority are fallacious"[1]. Pro needs to specifically demonstrate why my reference to an authority is fallacious, other than simply note that it is a reference to an authority. However, the actual fallacy being assert is the Is-Ought fallacy. As Pro states:"Here again, it is most frustrating to try to make the case that the 14th Amendment (being inclusive in its intent) should include protections for children in the womb... only to be reminded that it doesn't already do so or that it has not historically done so. Con is again 'appealing to authority' when he uses that (quoted above) as his counter."I will address this in the next section.Is-Ought:The two primary points of contention are: the laws, as-is and the laws, as they should be. In consideration of the point in contention, of which I have been accused of responding to fallaciously, Pro said:"... Doesn't, the "equal protections" clause of the 14th amendment and the even greater cause of "equal rights" come with the expectation that we cannot define "persons" one way under one law to establish their rights and then to define them another way under another law as to deny them? (R-3)"Note the use of the word "Doesn't" and not "Shouldn't." My interpretation of this was that of a question about the law as-is and my response was within that scope. I have not made any statement about how the laws should be. I am making no claims about, ought, and have merely describe the situation as is.Scope of the 14th Amendment:Pro commits the very type of equivocation I warned against in R2. To recap:"We cannot simply look in one area and see the word "person", look in another area and see the word "person", and then conclude that they are equal and connected and that the logical implications of one can be transferred to the other."And this is what Pro has done. Despite the use of the term "any" we still need to consider the meaning of the word "person." Unborn people aren't "persons" as is meant by the 14th Amendment, so they aren't covered by use of the qualifier "any." As I provided last round:"The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is said to apply to children, born within a marriage or not, but excludes children not yet born."[2]Pro has not refuted this.Another way to look of it as "persons" as a label for a set of objects and "any" means to include all members of that set. The statement is only relevant if unborn persons are a member of that set, as meant by the 14th Amendment. They aren't, so the qualifier of "any" does little to remedy the existing situation.Response to Intermediate Summary:"I have shared with Con, the legal definitions for "natural person"and I have noted that 'a human being' in the womb qualifies by sharing links to the U.S. Code which already defines an "unborn child" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at ANY stage of development, who is carried in the womb."To which I have responded to this general case to note that defining a something as a person in one area of law, for a specific statute, code, or case, does not extend to any other area. This legal concept goes unrefuted."I have also shared with Con, a link to the definitions of murder in attempt to further show that by making it the crime of murder to unjustly kill a child in the womb, the laws are already in fact acknowledging the 'personhood' of children in the womb."I have responded to this by noting that murder is defined by statute, and only includes fetuses when the law explicitly calls them out. It is not true or appropriate to make a universal statement here. Not all states recognize the killing of an unborn person as murder[3]."Con's claims (R-2) that prenatal children are "people of convenience, and not natural persons" actually helps to support Pro's claims (R-1) that our laws "to some extent already recognize the fact that human 'personhood' begins at conception.""Pro's burden is so to demonstrate personhood in the sense of a 'natural person' which is directly contradicted by my statement referenced here.Implicit Burden:"Con concluded: "Pro denies the implicit burden I identified, requiring Pro to not merely demonstrate that fetuses are labeled as persons, but that they are 'natural persons' as well as within the context of the 14th Amendment."This is not true, Con."It is, as I explained. The meaning here is the legal meaning, and the legal meaning you provided in R1 was that of 'natural person.' You provided no other goal to which to argue."People are people" and Remaining Arguments:The two paragraphs here are, essentially, a commission of the type of equivocation I warned about in R2. Legally, no, "people" aren't "people.""I have in fact tried to meet some of that burden but explaining to you that the only thing that can warrant the charge of murder is the unlawful / unjust killing of another natural person (another human being.)"Not true, as I explained in my clarification of murder, using Pro's own link. States are free to define the circumstances under which murder can happen."I also provided links to links to biological sources on aging, the life cycle and existing laws to further support this claim. To Con, I ask. What more is it that you would like to see in the way of 'proof' for me to show you that a human being in the first days of their life is "a human being?" A "natural person?""Those links are irrelevant because they are not legal documents. The current state of affairs, based upon valid interpretations of existing law is that fetuses are not natural persons. They are legal (not natural) persons when and where so defined by statute, and nothing more. This is, essentially, an irrefutable state of affairs."A human fetus (human being in the fetal stage of their life) is a 'natural person' in the context of the 14th (and 5th) Amendments because they are NO LESS a natural human being than is a human being who is much older, less deniable and perhaps more developed."They aren't[2] as already argued. You haven't refuted this in the sense of existing legal interpretation."PERSONHOOD is not something that human beings grow into. If you are a human being (and a human being in the first days of their life IS ONE).... personhood is automatic. This is where the Supreme Court erred in Roe v Wade."You are attempting to draw a link between legal and extra-legal contexts, suggesting that, because a fetus is included as a person elsewhere, then the law should recognize this. Not true. The point of laws is not to establish or enforce truths elsewhere. Did the courts err in classifying a Tomato as not a fruit? No. They weren't ruling on the factual classification of a tomato. Rather they were ruling on where tomatos should be in terms of taxes, fruits and vegetables being taxed differently (Nix v. Hedden (149 U.S. 304).The situation is the same for fetuses. It doesn't matter what they are, biologically or philosophically. All that matters is what we need them to be for the law. Now, you can argue that we need them to be 'natural persons,' legally, but you will have to do more than reference there status as persons outside of the law. The purpose of the law is not to duplicate other systems of classification.[1] http://www.nizkor.org...[2] http://www.law.cornell.edu...[3] http://www.nrlc.org...