Pro-life: Ignorance or Inhuman

I must say I'm not sure how to respond to an argument who's main point is to accuse me of feeling cognitive dissonance in reference to the subject matter due to Con's response and an assertion that my entire rebuttal is not an accurate reflection of my position but that I'm lying, being dishonest, and/or "flip-flopping" to avoid hypocritical self-justification. I thank my opponent for his response: I shall do my best to respond but given the varying ways my opponent has further misconstrued or attempted to misdirect the debate, 8,000 characters will not be enough. An Old Problem Remains... “ this debate is not about the people who hold a pro-life position but about the position itself being either an inhuman or ignorant position to hold” “ My basic contention is that a person holding a pro-life position(as defined in the preface) is either inhuman – given the logical, philosophical, and real life consequences of holding and/or implementing said position – OR they are simply ignorant of the consequences of holding and/or implementing their position.” In the section Con titled "Cognitive Dissonance" he claims, "The two statements are diametrically opposed." I did in fact address the perceived contradiction my opponent has attempted to point out in section in Round 2 titled “Addressing the issue:” "Given the facts and arguments that I presented in my case, (which Con has dismissed off hand as virtually irrelevant given the limited scope in which he has interpreted my position) holding a pro-life position (as defined in the preface) did seem to suggest a desire to cause demonstrable harm to a society (i.e. inhuman intent)unless that individual were simply ignorant of the consequences (logical, philosophical, and real life) of his or her position." I may be mistaken, but in order to suggest that the two statements compared in my opponent's response in Round 2 are "diametrically opposed," my opponent would need to cherry pick the quotation (take the quote out of context) from Round 2 to support/make his case. Indeed, even the text that was bolded by Con, when quoting me in my opening argument, seems to be an attempt to lend credibility to the cherry picking. If you read the quote in its entirety and in the context of the preface, it takes on a different meaning from the bolded text alone. Taken in the context of the opening arguments this entire debate was meant to be a challenge to show that the pro-life position was not an inhuman or ignorant position to hold. ...A New One Emerges “ In this debate it is to be understood that the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are not simply statements of personal preference. They are statements of political (and therefore ethical) ideology. A person who is pro-life does not simply say that they would not get an abortion but they say that abortion should be illegal. A position in which a person would not get or approve of an abortion but would NOT persecute or prosecute a person who would get one is pro-choice.” Prior to going into this debate, Con agreed to this premise (1). Unless I'm mistaken, so far my opponent has concentrated on almost nothing but the personal aspect of the abortion issue in pointing out the emotionally charged aspect of the subject and the ability of a person to hold a rational position while implementing it in an irrational way while avoiding the position altogether. This would appear to make Con's response in Round 1off topic: He is not addressing the pro-life position set forward in the preface, which is one of policy that one would enforce upon other people. The “(Ir)rational” Way "I claimed that pro-lifers weren't emotionally attached to the unborn (or at least not as much as born people), because they were irrational and prejudiced. Despite holding a rational position they are likely to implement it in an irrational way during a life and death situation due to their own prejudice.” Being that abortion is a life or death situation no matter what the circumstances that have culminated in the choice to kill an undeveloped human, the claim made here by Con cuts both ways does it not? I have claimed that there is a third option to the position (as defined in the preface) being ignorant or inhuman which is that it is irrational because of an emotional attachment to their position. Aside: This was not an assessment of opponent's argument from Round 1 but rather a byproduct of it coming into contact with the subject of the debate. The preface makes it very clear that (in the context of this debate) a pro-life position is about implementing a policy in which abortion would be illegal. The two situations in the opening argument were pointed out to show the inconsistency of not recognizing an embryo or a fetus as a fully fledged person in those situations while holding a position that would force the recognition of an embryo or a fetus as a fully fledged person which (if actually implemented) would force another person to make different choices from the ones they would make or face prosecution. Would my opponent have the reader believe that making abortion illegal to spite their own decision to save the 9-year-old girl in both situations could not be due to their prejudice, bias or emotional attachment to their position and is in fact a purely rational? The Topic Has Been Found: " Indeed it all comes down to one's definition of person. If one considers the unborn people then all of the practical harmful consequences become moot, as none of them justify the slaughter of millions of people. One could argue that since defining the unborn as people would cause these enormous negative consequences (very debatable but for the purposes of this debate we'll assume the pro-choice boogie stories are true) then we shouldn't define the unborn as people and doing so is inhuman. Of course this is nonsensical and ridicules.” It is nonsensical. In fact this entire paragraph becomes nonsensical after the first two sentences. Defining the “unborn” as fully fledged people (thereby providing them the same rights as any other person from the moment of conception) would have enormous consequences. A pregnant woman who trips and falls down a stairs could be legitimately be prosecuted for manslaughter or even negligent homicide should she miscarry do to the event. A couple practicing safe sex and had a condom break would be unable to get the Plan-B pill being that it would technically be a murder weapon. These are not “boogie” stories, should a developing human in the womb be considered a fully fledged person with rights, under the law, a pregnant woman falling down a stairs and miscarrying would be no different than falling down a stairs, causing another person to fall and break their neck. A woman even attempting to acquire a Plan-B pill could be charged with attempted homicide. No one would argue that considering a fetus to be a fully fledged person is inhuman unless in defining a fetus as such caused another person to suffer needlessly. That IS what is on debate every time people try to define the unborn (from embryo to fetus) as fully fledged people (2). I would go so far as to say that suggesting that there would be no negative ramifications in defining the unborn as fully fledged people would certainly be ignorant. Conclusion: 8000 Characters wasn't enough. Instead of attempting to fix the misunderstanding I attempted to point out in Round 2, my opponent has attempted to convince the reader that I was wrong about what my position actually is. As a consequence only one point of any relevance (personhood) was touched upon very briefly. 1 http://www.youtube.com... 2 http://www.parentdish.com...