Human Personhood Begins at and by Human Conception (fertilization)

In R-4, I accused Con of using an appeal to authority in his defense of the status quo on abortion; "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." Con responded with; “Merely referencing an authority is not automatically a fallacy; "[N]ot all Appeals to Authority are fallacious"[1].” Pro agrees. In addition, I tried to make it clear that I did not feel that it was intentional. Con continued; “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.” Con, I have provided the basis of this assertion already. a. Pro has the BOP to show why the 14th Amendment should not exclude children in the womb from it’s “equal protections clause.” b. To demonstrate the inclusiveness of the 14th Amendment, Con’s attention was drawn to the amendment’s use of the words “any persons” in the clause. “nor shall any state depriveanypersonof life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;nor deny toanypersonwithin its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (R-3 & 4) c. Con’s counter was to remind Pro that the 14th Amendment does not apply to the unborn & that no laws have been found to be unconstitutional (yet). That is like using the Bible to defend the validity Bible and that is what makes it an ‘appeal to authority.’ Skipping ahead to address Con’s comments on the “Ought” fallacy. Con said about himself: “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.” This is interesting because when Con accepted the challenges of this debate (R1) He understood what the challenges were. “My opponent will be taking the position of Con and will try to argue that personhood does not and or should not begin at conception.” Con, doesn't’t seem to understand that “the situation as is” is precisely what is being challenged by Pro. So, using the “situation as is” to maintain the status quo rather than to address the issue of ‘ought’ as per the challenge (in R-1) and as questioned by Pro (in R-2, 3 &4) has been the rub. Scope of the 14th Amendment: Rebuttal: Con asserted: 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." I will now use Con’s quoted comment to try to better make my case against it. As Con and I have been primarily dealing with the U.S. Code (laws) and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. I (Pro) have been trying to argue specifically for more consistency in our laws. Indeed, I have tried to argue the case that the “equal protections clause” of the 14th Amendment should not tolerate the exclusion of “any persons” from the protections of the clause. So, I read Con’s comment as such: “We cannot simply look in one area (of law) and see the word "person", look in another area (of law) 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." Pro’s view remains unchanged on this. Con’s comment (above) runs counter to the ideals expressed in the equal protections clause of the 14th Amendment. Con argues: “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] Con added: “Pro has not refuted this.” Pro HAS refuted this and Pro again notes Con’s appeal to authority on the matter. Pro has made the case repeatedly that the “Equal protections clause” is inclusive and should include the “children in the womb “ as defined by the U.S. Code [4]. The onus was on Con (R-1 challenge) to show why the 14th Amendment should not afford to them the “equal protections of our laws” [14]. Con has done a fairly good job establishing the fact that the 14th Amendment ‘does not’ presently afford the equal protections of laws to the unborn. However, he’s offered very little to show why it ‘should not’ afford to them those protections. And that was an integral part of Pros challenge in round one. Intermediate Summary Dialogue: "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."~ Pro Con responded: “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.” Con added: “Not all states recognize the killing of an unborn person as murder [3].” Con, this too has also been addressed if not completely refuted. It is the legal definition of murder that binds the cases together. Murder is defined as the unlawful / unjust killing of one person by another. Pro noted that you can not be charged with murder for killing anything other than another ‘person.’ And, as noted… the equal protections clause is supposed to (should) afford all persons the equal protections of our laws. This is in keeping with Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Quote: “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.”[18] It is clear to Pro that the Constitutional ideal is uniformity and consistency within our laws. And not the (Status Quo) disparity that Con is trying to maintain. Please note that this is not a new argument. This link is to further support one previously made. Implicit Burden: Pro’s response "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. Pro has shown that our laws by making it the crime of murder to kill a child in the womb have (by doing so) already established the ‘natural personhood’ of children in the womb. By legal definition, you can’t be charged with murder for killing anything other than another ‘natural person.’ "People are people" and Remaining Arguments: Pro’s response Rather than address Con’s comments from R-4 on this section, I would like to extend my previous arguments made in that round and in the first half of this round. Con continues to argue that the disparity in our laws is acceptable and I have shown that the Constitution (Article IV, Section 1) does't support his claims to that effect [18].In closing, I thank my opponent Con for a spirited and thoughtful exchange. I didn't expect that there could be anything left unsaid after 5 rounds of debate. However, I'm afraid that this one will not be the end all to all debates on the subject. I have "argued that our laws should and to some extent already do recognize the fact that human 'personhood' begins at conception. (R-1)" Con was supposed to "argue that personhood does not and or should not begin at conception." Please vote accordingly. [18] http://www.law.cornell.edu...