Of course, at the end of the day, it only matters if a human is a person from conception onward. Both debaters came to this point, but their responses were puzzling:
I asked, "At the end of the day, I have a question: If personhood is established for a non-viable human that is found to be inside a woman's body, does the woman still have a right to kill the non-viable human in your view?"
She said, "Yes, no one has the right to use anothers body without their permission, fetus or rapist."
The other man (heatmourning33) said (after I believe his personhood definition was destroyed), "I don't have all the answers, your way could be the better way to go, I havent [sic] been convinced."
Do you notice that the question of personhood doesn't really matter in the end to these PAAAC (pro-choice) people?
This leads me to the following advice:
Before starting to debate, ask explicitly the following question:
If personhood is established for a [zygote or equivalent], does the [woman/state/scientist/president/etc.] still have a right to kill the [zygote or equivalent] in your view?
FYI: The US Supreme Court:
If the suggestion of personhood [of the preborn] is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth Amendment].