It is illogical to choose birth as the milestone for attaining rights.

"'Why do only humans get rights? '(1) and 'What makes a newborn infant different mentally to most mammals and birds? '(2)" -1)Animals do have laws that protect them, which I consider to be rights in a fashion that they allow for some protection for their own well-being. I never stated anywhere that only humans receive rights. I did state, however, that we were to discuss humans, not animals, so there would be no confusion. Humans have far more complex and detailed rights that allow for society and government to function in this country. But this is not what we are trying to resolve, whether as to why humans have rights and mammals and birds do not. We are resolving that the rights given to a human are ascertained through birth, which I firmly believe. This allows for no grey areas to appear. The instant a child is born, in any fashion (I am aware there are other procedures as to how to deliver a child not through the normal route), they receive the rights granted to them through the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence -2)The difference between a newborn is that he or she will develop into something far superior to what a mammal or bird will ever aspire to. That newborn may develop a cure to a cancer, bettering the health of our society overall. I do not see many mammals or birds with white coats on in laboratories trying to better their own specific race. As we read on further into my opponent's speech, he states the following: "I realize now I neglected to define persons. A person is a being that is self-aware, and of at least basic intelligence(1). I feel this is a superior definition, as defining person simply as a human(2) limits rights to only us. " My opponents logic is flawed. -1)In no dictionary, judge, will you find this particular definition of the word "person". Why? Because my opponent made it up on the spot, claiming that he feels it is a superior definition. If we followed what he does, than I could state that Superior now means incorrect. Things like this do not work. -2)The Definition of person: 1: human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes (SOURCE: . http://www.merriam-webster.com...). As you can see, my opponent is incorrect with his definition, nullifying some of the points he has made. After those two points, my opponent seems to ramble on about how impaired humans are not smarter than chimpanzees, and that bottle-nose dolphins have their own language. He also states how humans are not the only persons. As I have just clearly showed you above, humans are the ONLY persons. He is using the word in the wrong context and trying to link it something to rebut with. "Also, under my definition, most infants aren't even persons, they aren't self-aware. If you want I can provide scientific evidence showing this. Obviously then, birth cannot be the right place to give rights, as they aren't even persons yet. " Basically, my opponent is saying that infants/newborns are not persons. Would that be safe to say that my opponent has little respect for human life? He feels that a person cannot receive rights because those humans are not self-aware. When should we, then, hand rights over to these humans? At an age of reason? No. That is a whole other debate. A fetus becomes a human at the instant of birth, and at that instant he or she is granted rights in the United States from the Constitution. My opponent then states his case on the matter. He says that rights should be granted at moment of contraception. This is where we disagree on things that are directly relevant to this debate. I feel that a human is a human at the exact moment of birth, not at conception. There must be time allotted in order for the fetus to develop. How would giving a human rights at the moment he or she is born be a denial of rights? My opponent seems to think we should treat the fetus as though it has rights, even though it is still under the direct influence of developing through its mothers care. I feel strongly that a fetus is a fetus until birth, therefore must receive rights at birth. If we waited later until the infant was older, or "self-aware", that would be a major denial of rights. For the sake of making the process of obtaining rights sensible and clear, a fetus is not a human until birth, where he or she attains the rights granted to all US Citizens by law. I await my opponents response.