Birth is an arbitrary dividing line between personhood and non-personhood.

I will use this round to present my rebuttalsBurden of ProofI want to clarify that Pro has the burden of proof because he is the instigator and he is making the positive claim that:"birth is an arbitrary dividing line between personhood and non-personhood, and thus, there is no moral difference between abortion and infanticide. "This is the complete resolution. The one that it's in the title is incomplete due to space. I only have to rebut his arguments or find a flaw on his main logic to win. Logic behind the resolutionThe resolution presents a really simple logic:A then B. A = Birth is an arbitrary dividing line between personhood and non-personhood. B - There is no moral difference between abortion and infanticide. Notice that there are 3 things Pro has to prove in order to fulfill his BoP:1. That A is true.2. That B is true.3. That there is a connection between A and B and that A causes B. I will win if I'm able to refute any of the points. Change of the definitionI don't accept the change of definition. I accepted the debate with the definition presented in the first round. I can still win with the new definition, but I still find dishonest to change the already proposed definition in the middle of the debate. Rebuttals1. There is no consensus on when personhood is attainedPro starts his arguments claiming that different people and different sciences have different opinions on when personhood is attained. The problem here is that Pro's evidence and explanations are related to life. Sadly, life is not enough to make a person. The spermatozoon and the egg are alive before conception, and those are not people. This is just an example. Another thing important to note is that "human" is not the same as "a human".2. Many specifically argue that birth is NOT when personhood is achievedThis is the first point that seems to be more related to personhood because it's already known that the fetus is alive, but when it's a person is not known. Here I will concede the first point to Pro even if the first part of his argument was not useful for his position. Sadly, having only the 1st point is not enough to fulfill his BoP. Here I will show why it's impossible for Pro to win. Arguments1. Even if the embryo/fetus was a person since conception, abortion and infanticide are morally differentThis is my attack to the third point about the relation between A and B. I will use the same argument I use to defend abortion in general: The bodily righs' argument. The bodily rights' argument states that the woman has the right to control her own body and that others can't force her to do with her body what she doesn't want. This doesn't mean that she could kill a person just because it happens to reside in her body but she is able to decide if she donates or not part of her body, like organs or her womb. For that reason, a fetus can't use the body of a woman, even if this fetus had all the rights of a person. The fact that in early term abortion, the fetus dies, is because it is not able to survive without the woman.2. Abortion is not murderThis is my attack to the second point. B is false, abortion is not murder. Even without the bodily righs' argument, the position of Pro fails with an easy example. The definition of abortion proposed in the first round by Pro is:"The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy. "Caesarean section is the late termination of a pregnancy that doesn't kill the fetus. C-section is a form of late term abortion.3. Infanticide has a definition that doesn't make sense in Pro's logicThe definition of infanticide is "The practice of killing a newborn human infant. " from the proposed definitions on the debate. Here Pro just killed his own position. Newborn is defined as "recently or only just born. " [1]So you could do an infanticide against a person after his birth. And abortions are practiced before the birth. ConclusionAfter those 3 arguments there is no reason to think Pro can defend his position anymore. I thank Pro for the debate. Vote CON. Sources1. . http://dictionary.reference.com...