There are good logical and scientific arguments for why a fetus is not a human person

I appreciate Pro's lengthy preface and clarification of my "parenthetical aside" - no logical trap intended, and I certainly do not expect Pro to prove that abortion is an ethical procedure. It was simply a side comment, and should assign no burden either way. That being said, I'm surprised that after making such efforts to clarify the prompt, Pro then immediately strays from it. My opponent offers a legal definition of personhood even though the prompt clearly asks for a logical and/or scientific one. To be sure, the law contains aspects of science and logic, but it qualifies as neither. This is because law, at its core, is merely a set of rules agreed upon by a majority of the populace or its representatives, making it a type of Appeal to Popularity fallacy. Even worse, Pro narrows their definition to only American Constitutional Law. We have no reason to accept that American Law can or should be authoritative in this debate - why not Russian Law, or Biblical Law, or Islamic Law? Nevertheless, Pro presents the law as evidence, and it is my job to refute it, so here goes: My opponent begins by defining a "human/natural person" as someone who has both legal rights and responsibilities. I will admit that a fetus cannot possibly fulfill responsibilities while inside the womb, but Pro excuses this requirement if "natural people [are] unable to fulfill their responsibilities due to extenuating circumstances. .. " I submit that being in the womb is such a circumstance. I also submit that young children are still excused from this requirement after birth; a 2 week old newborn has no legal responsibilities and could not possibly fulfill them even if she did. Is a newborn baby therefore not a "natural person? " This aspect of Pro's definition does not seem to hold water. This brings us to the question of legal rights. Pro brings up the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA), which is an excellent example. Pro's own source defines "natural person" simply as "a living human being. " [1] So does UVVA define a fetus as a living human being? Yes. Section 1841, subparagraph C says, "If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall be punished for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being. " Furthermore, UVVA says, "As used in this section, 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. "". [2] So contrary to Pro's claim, we see that UVVA defines a fetus as alive (thereby making it possible to kill) and as a homo sapien, which means it is a living human. Pro goes on to say that we cannot challenge the Supreme Court's reading of the Constitution or Roe v. Wade. Why? Supreme Court rulings and legal decisions get challenged all the time. For example, Jane Roe (Roe v. Wade plaintiff), whose real name is Norma McCorvey, is now an avid pro-life activist and openly petitions to overturn her own case! [3] Presenting the Supreme Court's opinions as evidence is an Appeal to Authority fallacy that simply claims "this is what some powerful American judges think, so it must be true. " This is neither logic nor science. Onto the issue of being brain dead. Pro attempts to make a connection between being brain dead and losing natural personhood. This is curious, because Pro already defined natural personhood as having both legal rights and responsibilities. A medically "brain dead" person still has legal rights, and they still accrue responsibilities (if you regain consciousness, you will still have to pay your hospital bill), so I fail to see how a brain dead person loses their natural personhood. Pro seems to suggest that a fetus meets the criteria for clinical "brain death" and is therefore not a living person. This is inaccurate. According to Pro's own source, brain death is defined as: "the irreversible loss of all functions of the brain, including the brainstem. " [4] A fetus does not have irreversible loss of brain function - on the contrary, brain function and development improves almost daily inside the womb. Furthermore, according to Pro's source, "brain death" cannot be declared without a complete neurological examination, which is impossible to do in utero. Finally, the source goes on to declare "The brains of infants and young children have increased resistance to damage and may recover substantial functions even after exhibiting unresponsiveness on neurological examination. " This seems to contradict everything my opponent claimed. At the very least, it introduces a fatal dose of reasonable doubt. In terms of my opponent's claim that fetuses are unresponsive to stimuli and incapable of unassisted movement until week 26 of pregnancy, I cannot examine their source #7 because the web link appears broken. But it is a scientific fact that fetuses do respond to stimuli and move within the womb much earlier than 26 weeks [5]. As a final note, I agree that claiming sperm cells to be human is preposterous. No one here is claiming a sperm or an egg is human life, so I will not treat this as an argument. Furthermore, I am puzzled by Pro's tangent about why banning abortions will not stop abortions. This is not related to the debate, as it has no connection to proving why a fetus is not a human person. I view these claims as irrelevant and will refrain from responding to them. That's all for now, looking forward to the next round! [1] . https://www.law.cornell.edu... [2] . http://www.gpo.gov... [3] . https://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [5] . http://www.beginbeforebirth.org...