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

Congratulations to my opponent (Pro) on a very good effort outlining of the specifics of this debate. I accept this challenge with the hopes that we will reach some common ground on the subject of human personhood, when it begins and on the viability of Roe v. Wade itself. Pro has not specified a round for beginning arguments and as this debate has only three rounds total, I would like to respond to Pro's comments in this round. The Normative Principles & Cross-Perspective Agreement 1. "... the two sides (Pro-Life & Pro-Choice) have postulated arguments which are of little practical importance to the question of the legality of abortion, and the disagreement on the policy aspect of abortion would lead us to believe that we must turn elsewhere. "I agree with Pro on this point. In addition and for the record, I prefer to call myself 'anti-abortion [1].'2. "The fetus is of course a human life, just as much as your appendix is."My opponents claim here is biologically incorrect. An appendix is only a part of the (much larger) organism that it belongs to. A human fetus is an entire organism in and of itself [2]. Consider a human embryo living in a petri dish created by invitro fertilization [3]. It too is a human life. Correct? Even as it is living outside of and apart from the body of any other human being. It is a human life. The same can not be said of an appendix. Concerning the Inapplicability of the Above Normative Statements & The Appropriate Question3. "The question is of "personhood" and this can be said to be agreed upon by legislative assemblies which have dubiously labeled anti-abortion bills "Personhood Amendments." Life and personhood are inextricably distinct concepts in theory and in the actuality of worldly substances of which "life" and "persons" are constructed."I agree with Pro that the question is one of "personhood" and also when and how personhood begins?The current legal definition for a person is simply; "a human being" and or "the body of a human being. [4]" For myself, that definition when considered along with Pro's earlier comment that a human fetus is "a human life" should automatically end this debate with a vote for Con. However, I understand that Pro is not likely to immediately appreciate the full significance of the legal definitions and what has just transpired. So, I am prepared to expound on this point in the following rounds. 4. "... the question to be asked of the "pro-choice" individual is not of a woman's legal right to control over her body, but in the case of abortion where her own body ends and another body begins with respect to a fetus."Science has not problem making this determination. The two organisms (mother and fetal child) are both connected and separated by the "placental barrier." [5]5. "The ultimate question is explicated by Berger and Zijderveld as, "When in the nine-month trajectory of pregnancy does a human person emerge?" There is a simple and yet unsatisfying answer to that question we don't know."I submit that we do know and I will expound on the reasons why in later rounds. I also ask Pro. If "we don't know" for certain whether or not an abortion kills a child (person) shouldn't we err on the side of caution and life? 6. "He who says that the person is formed at birth (conception?) is required by the burden of proof to show, which hundreds upon hundreds of years of examination on the human person and natural law by the brightest of individuals has failed to provide a conclusive answer."I understand and I will continue to provide the evidence that convinces me of the fact that personhood begins at conception as this debate allows. 7. "The personhood at conception view is typically based on theological perspectives or inconclusive philosophical premises, which self-evidently have no role to play in legislative abortion policy."Hopefully, as this debate unfolds Pro will appreciate the fact that my basis is neither theological nor philosophical on this subject. The Distinction between Specified DNA and "Personhood"8. "It should first be noted the biological fact that mitochondria have their own separate and unique DNA within each cell, so unless personhood is to be granted to the organelle itself, unique DNA (alone) is not reason to grant unique personhood to the entity in which the DNA is contained. From this we can extrapolate to make a more practical distinction in that "Whatever I am as a person isn't identical with my DNA, and it's I, not my DNA, who have certain inalienable rights."I tend to agree. However, I would add the word 'alone' as I did in parenthesis above.Legislative Application (The Question of Roe v. Wade)9. "If it is to be argued that the state has sufficient interest in banning the termination of a pregnancy, then Con must be asked to show: (1) a conclusive and convincing argument for the establishment of a human person at conception that does not depend on irrelevant religious premises; (2) that a defense of anti-abortion legislation appropriately applies the First Amendment which only grants the individual right to practice their religion independently and without obstruction."Understood. 10. "It can be reasonably assumed that an embryo at 1-2 weeks is relatively further from "personhood" than a developed fetus in the second or third trimester."To this, I would say that such an assumption is not 'reasonable' once it is understood that personhood begins at conception. 11. "Because we don't know when we are dealing with an unborn person, it is reasonable to make "abortion solely the woman's prerogative at least during the first trimester, then making abortion increasingly difficult and finally illegal except under extraordinary circumstances."I would like to bring Pro's attention to the legal definitions under 'Laci and Conner's Law.'[6] A law which (already) establishes the personhood of a child in the womb by making the unjust killing of a prenatal child a crime of murder[7] and defines the child as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."This law (for now) makes an exception to keep voluntary abortions 'legal.' Hopefully, Pro will appreciate the significance of that fact. The rule is that killing a child (person) in the womb is a murder. The exception is to allow for abortions to be permitted. In Defense of the Posed Debate12. "It can be reasonably shown that this methodology is consistent with the legislative conclusions of Roe v. Wade. The decision has limited the availability of receiving an abortion until "viability," or the point at which the fetus is able to naturally survive outside of the women. This is typically denoted as around 22 weeks. It is my argument that this chronological denotation is the best we as a collective species have done to establish "personhood," thus making the decision of the Supreme Court adequate and worthy of continued support." The personhood aspect of prenatal children is paramount in ANY abortion debate [8]. This one is not exception. However, I disagree with Pro's assertion that the burden should be upon a developing child to breech our ability to deny to them their 'personhood rights' before we will finally regard them as 'persons' worthy of the equal protections of our laws. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.plannedparenthood.org...[3] http://www.plannedparenthood.org...[4] http://dictionary.findlaw.com...[5] http://www.med.umich.edu...[6] http://news.findlaw.com...[7] http://dictionary.findlaw.com...[8] http://youtu.be...