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

In summary of my opponents arguments, I will trust that I will be corrected if I am mistaken:1. The definitions of "pro-life" and "pro-choice" have been conceded as useful but often deceptive labels with regard to the important questions of this debate. 2. The status of "life" to a fetus is distinct from one's ability to label other organs (such as the appendix) as human life. 3. The concession has been made that "life" and "personhood" are distinct qualities of any substance, organismic or otherwise. 4. The definition of a human person can be said to be (at least legally) the same as a "human being," which has been proposed as an an appropriate extrapolation from the status of "human life" to determine the validity of Roe v. Wade. 5. Science has not run into a problem making a determination of where a human person's body ends and a fetus' body ends.6. We do know when a human person emerges during the nine month process of pregnancy (claimed but not justified until later rounds).7. The concession that unique and distinct DNA is not grounds for establishing unique and distinct personhood. 8. Concession that the establishment of fetal personhood must be adequately shown to provide the government with a significant interest in banning the termination of a pregnancy. 9. There is no reason to believe that the growth of a fetus is a gradual progression, but instead is something that happens instantaneously at conception. 10. Laws such as "Laci and Conner's" law which supposedly establishes the personhood of a child in the womb.At the risk of sounding redundant, I will point out the extraordinary number of concessions that have been made between two individuals who disagree on what has become so vitriolic among some individuals: (1) Pro-choice and pro-life, while they are useful at denoting different policy preferences, are deceptive; (2) life and personhood are distinct characteristics, and that personhood requires life but life does not require personhood; (3) unique and distinct DNA is not sufficient in and of itself to establishing personhood; (4) the establishment of a fetus' personhood not be dependent on inappropriate applications of religious law.In Response to Non-Conceded Premises:1. In the distinction between life and personhood: an appendix can be said to be human life in that it is comprised of the "stuff" of life (as Carl Sagan) would put it. In this sense an appendix is much like a fetus in that while neither serve as necessary components of the proper functioning of a woman, they would both be inoperable outside of the organism in which they are latched. My opponent has claimed that a fetus is "an entire organism in and of itself" while not recognizing that the entirety of an organism ipso facto requires the basic biological functions of breathing, digesting, a beating heart, etc. While a fetus may in fact be able to perform some of these necessary functions before birth, the entirety of its organismic status cannot possibly be rectified with its inability to survive naturally on its own (viability). An embryo living in a petri dish is in fact human life, but is in no way a full organism nor can it be said to have personhood, which has been admitted to be the relevant question in the legislative abortion debate. My opponent has failed to recognize the inappropriateness of ascribing "life" variably with "organismic entirety." Thus, the appendix is "alive" in the sense that it is a construction of the basic tenets of physiological "life," but its personhood is not able to be even conceptually extrapolated from such a fact. 2. On a "human person" being synonymous with a "human being": You seem to lack any observable methodology of moving from "human life" to "human being" to "human person." And that is precisely my point in ascribing inconclusivity to the debate thus far. If you wish to establish conclusivity to a debate that has been up in the air for centuries with no observable acceptable conclusion, I will wait to hear it. I will point out, however, that you are grossly overestimating the ease of such labeling. As Kristin Luker of the University of Michigan writes: "The moral status of the embryo has always been ambiguous. Though both sides turn to history and philosophy and law to buttress their arguments that the embryo is or is not a baby, none of these disciplines gives any evidence that can prove the status of the embryo 'beyond a reasonable doubt...' In short, philosophy, law, and history only confirm something we already knew about embryos, that they are located on a continuum that stretches from a single sex cell (an egg or a sperm) to a newborn human infant. All that these disciplines can tell us is that sometimes embryos are treated as the babies they will become while at other times they are treated as the primitive single-celled creatures they once were." (http://www.amazon.com...)3. The question of scientific labeling: You claim that science has not had a "problem in making [the] determination" of where a woman's body ends and the fetus begins. You may be correct at first glance, but further understanding of the placental barrier will ask whether that connection is the mother, the fetus, or as I would say "something in between." If you'll allow me to get a little graphic, it is clear that when one is engaging in sexual intercourse, there is a sort of "overlap" but a distinction is clear in what is the "outline" of the first individual's body and the second. This is not clear, as you claim it to be, in the case of pregnancy, for the fetus and the mother are ultimately tied to each other and running off of each other. They are intrinsically connected unlike one engaging in copulation that does indeed mean that the lines are clearly blurred. Unless you can provide a reason for us to see these lines as less blurry, the distinction is not as easy as you claim it to be. 4. To the claim that we know when a human person emerges: You have not provided reason to believe this but ensured us that you will explicate your theory in further rounds, so I will be glad to wait on this point.5. On the claim that personhood is a quality able of being acquired instantaneously rather than over a gradual progression: You have made it clear that you believe the indelible mark of human personhood is quite able to be granted instantaneously, but I will ask why this is as opposed to the quite common (and I would say moderate) view of the fetus growing and developing gradually and thus establishing some of the correct labelings gradually. It is at this point I believe you have made it very difficult on yourself to not rely on teleological or religious pleas, for it appears to me that only a religious argument would be brash enough to ascribe such an important and significant label so definitively at one exact point in time. 6. As to laws such as Laci & Connor's: I will first point out that you seem to understand (as do I) that 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. Anyways, we have found another point of agreement! That our legislature is quite often incompetent when it comes to dealing with these heavy issues rationally and effectively. This does not, however, establish a benefit on either side of the argument. I have run out of space, I will be glad to answer any of the questions I inevitably missed if you will point out specific applicable ones next round.