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

I would also like to apologize for any ill-will that I may have caused for my slight amendment to the definition of abortion before beginning of the debate. My only intention was avoid any potential confusion that an inadequate definition might have caused. Here it is again for reference, with the amendment in italics: “Abortion: The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy resulting in the death of the fetus(es). ” I am confident that my opponent understands, as he has himself proposed definitions after the start of debates on multiple occasions, even after his opponent has already presented his/her opening arguments. [1][2][3] Answer to Con’s Rebuttals “The problem here is that Pro’s evidence and explanations are related to life. Sadly, life is not enough to make a person” I am sorry that this is a saddening thought to Con. Fortunately, however, the evidence that I presented dealt not with the spontaneous eruption of life from nothingness, but rather with exact stage that a zygote/embryo/fetus/infant achieved personhood. Occasionally, the word life is used indicating human life… ie personhood. I encourage Con to view my sources if any confusion remains. Regardless, Con graciously conceded my first point (birth is an arbitrary dividing line between personhood and non-personhood)- an important fact of which I would ask the voters to take note. Rebuttals “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. ” I would argue that a woman DOES have the right to control her own body- as long as her control doesn’t directly lead to the death of another life form with personhood status. For example, my wife can control her body as she pleases, so she occasionally drinks alcoholic beverages. However, if the activity caused her kill a pedestrian while driving intoxicated, her right to her personal bodily control would not exonerate her. Basically, the right of an innocent person to live trumps a woman’s right to control of her body. “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. ” This statement is contradictory. Con says that she has no right to “kill a person just because it happens to reside in her body”, but that she can decide whether or not to “donate” her womb. By definition, if she decides against her donation, the fetus WILL die. And, as I would like to remind you, Con conceded my first point, which was based on the premise that many believe fetuses to be persons- thus her decision not to donate her womb would indeed kill a person just because it happened to reside in her body. "Abortion is not murder" This is a straw man argument, as I never argued that either abortion of infanticide are murder- rather, that they are morally equivalent. Whether they are both murder or both rational and morally justifiable acts is something that I would leave up to the readers of this debate to decide. "Infanticide has a definition that doesn’t make sense in Pro’s logic. " I will provide my definition again for reference: "Infanticide: The practice of killing a newborn human infant. " Perhaps it is my own ignorance, but I fail to see what “doesn’t make sense”. I ask that Con explain in detail what fault he sees in either the definition or my logic. Conclusion I greatly admire Con’s zeal for the topic, but I failed to see him make any serious arguments that either supported his side of the debate or contradicted my side. I eagerly await his second round rebuttals and ask that you refrain from making up your minds on which side to cast your votes until all of our arguments are made. [1] . http://www.debate.org... [2] . http://www.debate.org... [3] . http://www.debate.org...