Abortion in the 1st and 2nd trimester is immoral

1. Human v.s. Person?[1]Definition of a human-A bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) Perhaps one of the biggest reasons I am of the pro life persona, is because of the natural right to life that all humans are supposed to enjoy. Now, it has been scientifically proven that a fetus is human. Logic suggests, that since the right to life is a human right, and that since a fetus is in fact, a living human being, that it would enjoy this right. My opponent argues that it is human, but not a person. However, the right to life is not a personal right, it is a human right. To enjoy this right, you must be human (other animals, for example do not get this right because they are not human). My opponent argues that a fetus must be mentally developed to be considered a *person*. But, as I said, life is a human right, not a personal right. Because a fetus shares the physical and anatomical traits of homo sapiens (human beings), and not, say, that of a cat or a dog, it then qualifies for the human right to life. Because a fetus is in fact a member of the human race, physically and anatomically, I feel that social identity and mental state are beside the point. The question is, do you need "social interaction" or "social identity" to be considered a human being? No, you do not. To be a person, maybe. In extreme cases, such as hermits, little to no social interaction takes place, but they are still human. I admit, the case of a hermit is extreme, and unusual, but it is still true, for this part of the debate. No interaction with society is achieved. They are still human. What about the mental state of a fetus? Does the mental state change the fact of whether a fetus is human or not, and consequentially entitled to human rights? No, it does not. It still shares the traits of human beings. It is not a dog, it is not a cat, it is a human being, whether it is mentally undeveloped or otherwise. Even in the case of anencephalic fetuses, they still have a chance for survival, and killing them would deprive them of their right to life. While I did argue that they could be aborted in my previous argument, the result of some more, careful thinking leads me to the conclusion that they still do, in fact have a right to life, because they are still human. 2. Does a fetus have a right to life? After observing the fact that a fetus is human, and the right to life is a human right, guaranteed to all human beings, yes, a fetus does, in fact, have a right to life. My only exception is when the Mother is sick, and needs treatment, and the fetus is younger than 21 weeks gestation. For example, lets say a woman has cancer, and needs chemotherapy. It runs the risk of harming the fetus, therefore, she has a few choices. Start chemo anyway, abort the fetus (depending on the gestational age), inducing labor and try to have the baby premature, or forgo treatment altogether. I agree it would be wrong to ask a woman to forgo treatment, so if the fetus is younger than 21 weeks gestation, then I believe she should be allowed to abort if she wishes, because otherwise, the fetus would die anyway. However, any older, then she should induce labor and attempt to have the child, because there would still be a chance for survival (optimal age for this would be 30 weeks gestation, but 21 weeks on up, survival is possible). What about cases of rape, you may ask? Again, assuming that life is a human right, and that a fetus is human, then I believe the fetus should be allowed to live. If she sees a doctor soon enough, perhaps the fetus hasn't been conceived. In this case, a contraceptive would be permissible, because life hasn't been conceived yet, it is just potential life (outlawing contraceptives would be like outlawing masturbation, so obviously a contraceptive is fine, so long as life hasn't been conceived).ConclusionBecause a fetus is a living human being, and because life is a natural human right, then logic suggests that a fetus should in fact be allowed to live. Saying it is anything less than human, is bordering upon argumentsmade that black people were less than human, only partly human. In this case, my opponent is arguing the same thing, only instead of black people, it is fetuses. I conclude then, that the pro choice argument is unsound, and that fetuses do, in fact, have a natural human right to life. Sources-[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...