The Unborn Are Persons From Fertilization

KeytarHero, thank you for continuing this Debate. What you wrote about doctors "treating the unborn like any other person" is not accurate. Most doctors specialize in learning about the human *animal* *body*. (Veterinarians generalize, for many animal bodies.) It doesn't matter if *any* human qualifies as a person or not; it's *body* is still the type of animal that most doctors specialize in treating. Next, there is a *specific* way in which *all* unborn humans are *not* counted as legal persons. They are quite literally not counted during the *Constitutionally* *required* decennial *Census* of *persons*. The Founding Fathers started that in 1790; they didn't count chickens before they were hatched, and they didn't count persons before they were born. And no unborn human has ever been counted in any Census since. ht......ww.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/index_of_questions/ Next, your attempt to "amend" the equation "human=person" did not actually amend it at all. In regular words, the equation states "*All* humans are persons". That *is* your side of what we are Debating here! The reversed equation is "all persons are humans" --and *that* is very probably wrong (especially for anyone who believes God exists). The notion of "inherent value" is an oxymoron. Something that is "inherent" can be Objectively Measured, like the hardness of a diamond. But *ALL* values are Subjective, not Objective. That's why the Law of Supply and Demand applies even to adult human lives, for example, whenever some boss fires you and doesn't care if you starve to death, by saying, "There are plenty more where *you* came from!" So your argument is still broken; "inherent value" simply does not exist. Period. Next: The word "being" has several definitions. The way it is used in the phrase "for the time being" is different from the way it is used in the phrase "The unbearable lightness of being". And of course yet another meaning is tied to the phrase "human being". Abortion opponents are very fond of the phrase "human being". They very frequently use it when talking about an unborn human. Why? Why isn't the word "human" sufficient by itself? Suppose we were talking about rabbits instead of humans. How often would the phrase "rabbit being" appear in the conversation? Almost never, right? Because the word "rabbit" *is* sufficient, by itself! So, somehow, the word "being" has a special meaning in the phrase "human being", so special that the word very seldom gets used when talking about other living things. Phrases such as "radish beings" or "eel beings" or "paramecium beings" basically just *don't* get used! But! There *is* one area of human communication where "being" *does* frequently get used for other living things. In the literature of science fiction, there are "alien beings", "extraterrestrial beings", and "intelligent beings" galore! And therefore the *special* meaning of the word "being" is revealed: It is a synonym for "person". So, we don't talk about rabbit beings because we don't consider rabbits to be persons. Ditto for radish beings/persons. And so on. Thus, the reason abortion opponents are so fond of the phrase "human being", when talking about an unborn human, is: They are trying to *subtly* convince you that the unborn human is a person. But that is Bad Logic. They need to prove it is a person *before* they start calling it a "human being"! Perfectly human, that unborn organism most certainly is. But a person? *Not* *just* *because* *you* *call* *it* *one* (using phrase-trickery)! And now I invite you to think about the phrases "zygote being", "blastocyst being", "embryo being", and "fetus being". Because, to whatever degree any of those phrases seem as "wrong" as "rabbit being", that is the degree to which some part of you thinks that development stage, of an unborn human, actually isn't a person. Regardless of all the anti-abortion propaganda out there! Next: Various people who oppose abortion make an argument based on the idea that the average human organism is a kind of "continuum" in terms of its growth and existence. Abortion in the broader sense can only affect the stages of the continuum between conception and birth (would include any type of "morning after pill" that can prevent pregnancy from even beginning). After birth the continuum of a human life proceeds for a hopefully long time. And a natural death would be the preferred end. Obviously an abortion would interrupt that continuum. But if, in general, a human life should not be interrupted, then what can possibly be the rationale for allowing abortion? In other words, how is a minutes-from-being born human so significantly different from a just-born human that the latter can be called a "human person", and has legal rights under the U.S. Constitution, but the former somehow escapes receiving such rights, as if it was no more than a "human animal"? Why aren't the two morally/ethically equivalent? Well, it just so happens that there actually is an *exact* answer to that question. Prior to birth, *including* the last few minutes before birth, the "modus operandi" by which an unborn human survives is this: It *takes* biological resources from someone else, *without* *asking* *permission*. After birth, a newborn human is physically almost totally helpless, and so a new "modus operandi" for survival is required: It accepts gifts. Note that while any other newborn mammal can reach a teat by itself, and *take* nourishment, a newborn human must be *carried* to a teat; it can't take nourishment without active help. As an aside, it might be mentioned that various ancient human cultures, such as Rome, were quite willing to practice infanticide simply by withholding the gift of a teat. Apparently the Romans (and others) assumed that physically defective newborns didn't deserve that gift. Well, that was then, and is not relevant today, when our Constitution basically (using different words than these!) grants newborns the *right* to be given access to a teat. (Aside ends.) Now, why is that distinction, the difference birth makes, so important in terms of morals/ethics? Let us sneak up on the answer by looking at an exaggeration, courtesy of the realm of fantastic fiction. The stories describe intelligent humanish entities who at first glance would qualify as "persons" under the U.S. Constitution. In the classic stories any one of these entities is often a Bad Guy, who has a "modus operandi" of survival that involves *taking* biological resources from someone else without asking permission.... That act is considered to be so immoral and/or unethical that there is a classic penalty for it --and no judge or jury is required, either! A wooden stake should be driven through the heart of a "vampire". Opponents of abortion talk about how the procedure "stops a beating heart" --while completely ignoring the fact that the organism containing that heart was behaving at least as immorally/unethically as a vampire. Actually, the unborn human is *worse* --because only it *also* dumps its toxic biological waste products into the body of someone else, *still* without asking permission. Arguments like "An unborn human is totally unable to ask permission", and "It doesn't understand what it is doing", don't work. Basically, the unborn human is *either* a dumb parasitic "human animal" with no *right* to life, *or* it is a person who is *more* immoral/unethical than a vampire. Therefore, *no* woman should need encounter either judge or jury or any other legal nonsense, to seek an abortion, if she doesn't want her blood sucked and poisoned by an unborn human. (In the next Debate Round, I'll destroy the "implied granting of permission by having sex" argument.) Meanwhile, a newborn human is still physically unable to behave immorally or unethically. It is indeed innocent. And it is protected by the Constitution.