Human Personhood Begins at and by Human Conception (fertilization)

Pro has basically repeated much of his arguments without really addressing my own comments on the matter. I will address new points brought up and then provide a summary.Con's Burden:"This is interesting because when Con accepted the challenges of this debate (R1) He understood what the challenges were. “My opponent will be taking the position of Con and will try to argue that personhood does not and or should not begin at conception.”"Indeed. And/or. Meaning I may tackle one or both aspects of that contention[1]. I have chosen to focus on the status of existing laws.Full Faith and Credit:“Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.”I'm not sure what Pro is implying here. This clause was certainly not meant to imply that all State laws should be identical, otherwise there would be no need for individual state codes! Quite the contrary, this statement would force states to respect each others' definitions of murder, even if theirs differ.Summary:My primary focus in this debate was to demonstrate that unborn persons are not, even in part, considered 'natural persons' especially with regard to the protection of the 14th amendment. To this end, I have noted that, while individual laws and statutes may include or define unborn persons as persons, this is only has power within the scope and context of that law, and confers no special status of 'natural personhood' on unborn persons. In support of this, I have referenced the existing notion of corporations as defined as people in certain contexts, but are explicitly noted as being different from 'natural persons.'Pro never directly refuted this comparison, but instead merely repeated his insistence that simply including unborn persons as persons within the context of a single law makes them 'natural persons.' This is despite the fact that he has also conceded that, while corporations are persons in some contexts, they aren't 'natural persons.' Pro never clarified why this extension to 'natural personhood' works for unborn persons but not corporations.Furthermore, I have provided direct and explicit references regarding the 14th Amendment and its inapplicability to unborn persons. This is a point that Pro has conceded:"Con has done a fairly good job establishing the fact that the 14th Amendment ‘does not’ presently afford the equal protections of laws to the unborn."Rather unequivically, Pro has failed to demonstrate his first burden:"1. Pro will argue that the laws should and to some extend already do recognize the fact that human 'personhood' begins at conception....Additionally, the definition of 'natural person' and the 'equal protections' clause of the 14th Amendment provides the context for interpreting #1 and #2."While I have met mine.Regarding the argument as to why the laws should treat unborn persons as 'natural persons' the situation is less clear. In several cases Pro has seemed to shift from "is" to "ought" so it isn't clear which of his contentions he is arguing at any given point. The only clear argument for the second contention was stated in the previous round, noting that unborn persons are considered 'natural persons' elsewhere, outside of law, so our laws should refect this.I refuted this reasoning by noting that it is not the purpose of our laws to reflect or mirror any other established classifications. I don't see that Pro refuted or even commented on this.Alternatively, one can interpret Pro's use of the definition of murder as in support of the "should" argument, but this also has been refuted. The definition provided by Pro both A) makes no reference to 'natural persons'; and B) ignores the very important element of conceding the full definition of murder to individual States, thus preventing its use as some sort of universal proclamation.As a result, Pro has failed to demonstrate his second burden:"1. Pro will argue that the laws should and to some extend already do recognize the fact that human 'personhood' begins at conception....Additionally, the definition of 'natural person' and the 'equal protections' clause of the 14th Amendment provides the context for interpreting #1 and #2."[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...