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

In response to my description of my opponent's arguments.1. Conceded as an accurate description.2. The accuracy of the description was not objected to. Not shown to be contradictory to my opponent's argument, but appropriate extrapolations are debated.3. Con claims that no such concession has been made to the inextricable distinction between life and personhood. Pro is quoted as saying "I agree with Pro that the question is one of 'personhood' and also when and how personhood begins." No objection was made to the clear distinction between life and personhood, as seen in the concession that the appropriate question is of personhood and not life. Con seems to have backpedaled on this issue. 4. Conceded as accurate description, but with debatable extrapolations. 5. Conceded as an accurate description.6. "^"7. An appropriate addendum was made to include the inappropriateness of DNA alone being enough to establish personhood. Conceded by me. 8. Conceded as partially right, rebutted with measurements of requirement for personhood and not to the point of constitutional and legislative interest. 9. Con claims that it is a misappropriation of his arguments to claim that he believed in an instantaneous occurrence of a human person. A simple look to the fact that Con agrees with personhood established at conception (a single, definable moment in time) will show that his definitions are of an instantaneous nature rather than a progression.10. Con has made the distinction between the effective establishment of personhood in connected but distinct legislation, but failed to take into account my point in round 2 of the inconsistency of laws and legislation making no benefit to either side of the normative debate. Con has conceded to a progression of human development in his statements of the timely distinction between "1. conception and birth; 2. puberty and adolescence; 3. adulthood; 4. senescence. Con has failed to reconcile this accurate description of human development with his belief that personhood can be said to be granted instantaneously at the moment at which an egg is fertilized by a specific sperm. Con seems to experience some confusion over whether the physiological and observable progression of human development can be reconciled with the labeling of stages of development at a particular moment of time. We either develop personhood, or it is something that can be seen as a gradual process. Con must make an attempt to reconcile the fact of physiological development through progression and the claimed ease of establishing personhood at a specific moment in time.I must point out the incessant need to identify my arguments and positions with organizations such as Planned Parenthood that I have claimed no normative association with despite my support for their provided services. I find it necessary to point out the difference in the theoretical and practical implications of this debate. With regard to ultimate effects, I am in support of the services that Planned Parenthood provide. However, it is a straw man to assume that the reasons and definitions put forth by Planned Parenthood are identical with or dependent on my arguments. In short, I am not defending Planned Parenthood in this debate, I am defending the normative aspect of the abortion debate with regard to its efficient application in Roe v. Wade. Con's inference from the creation of my DNA to the personhood of myself while a fetus has failed to be consistent with his concession that DNA alone cannot establish personhood. No additional reasons to establish personhood beyond unique DNA (which by Con's own words are insufficient) were provided.On Applications of the State of Amoeba's with regard to Organismic EntiretyAn amoeba is in itself a complete organism. This can be said because the full development of an amoeba is a single cell. However, in order to establish organismic entirety to a multicellular species, the comparison to a single-celled organism is irrelevant. The organism can be said to be a "full person" in the case of homo sapiens when that organism is capable of living and functioning independently (http://en.wikipedia.org...), which an amoeba is able to do being a single-celled organism because the entirety of the amoeba only requires a single cell. The comparison here is between apples and oranges, between an organism that can be labeled "entire" because it can only hope to remain single celled, and an organism which is multi-cellular if it is to be granted status of organismic entirety. Con has said it himself: "an amoeba will ever be is a single celled organism" [sic]. One must provide reason to believe this comparison is relevant.Con claims: "human beings do not morph out of something that is less than a human being and into something which is." This is clearly incorrect. Human beings are created out of an egg and a sperm, two thing which in themselves are not human (and if it is to be argued to the contrary, masturbation would need to be labeled mass murder), but that when put together may morph into something that is human. The question at hand is when that combination can be labeled a person. Con argues that the label can be placed instantaneously when the egg and the sperm meet, while I argue that human personhood cannot be established instantaneously with the simple combination of the parts. Putting two legos together does not deserve the label of a "lego tower," but the concurrent addition of legos (biological and physiological resources in the case of a fetus) gradually increased the applicability of the label. Simply put, the combination of two resources of "creation" does not entitle the immediate label of what those two resources will eventually create. I concede that "conception is when your father became your biological father." Con must provide a reason why this is able to be extrapolated to full and complete personhood. In round 1 #9 Con claims to have understood that he must provide reasons why the state has "sufficient interest in banning the termination of a pregnancy." He conceded that he must be required to "show a conclusive and convincing argument for the establishment of a human person at conception that does not depend on irrelevant religious premises." While he did not attempt to show such an argument based on religious premises, his non-religious premises still do not create a "conclusive and convincing argument for the establishment of a human person at conception." By his own admittance, Con has failed to produce the necessary arguments for establishing a legitimate state interest in banning the termination of a pregnancy. If Con claims to have fulfilled this need in the subsequent round, let that be determined by the voters. On The Important Question of Uncertainty of Personhood being Logically Followed by the "Side of Caution and Life."This is a question that I take very seriously. It is a question, however, which can easily be neutralized if not answered by the question: "Would it not make sense in issues of moral uncertainty to leave the decision up to the woman involved and not effectively and practically assume an answer to the quandary?" The question must turn to the role of government in legislating practically when moral uncertainty is present. The distinction can be made between the theoretical and practical. A ban on abortion due to the uncertainty of the matter may theoretically appreciate the moral uncertainty, but it effectively and practically assumes a conclusion. It is my argument that this is not the role of the government in moral gray areas. Government must function on empirically observable facts. A monomania with regard to the practical implications may very well turn into a government of paternalism which protects its citizens from harms that they need not nor wish not to be protected from. Lawrence v. Texas may provide insight into this problem: (http://en.wikipedia.org...).