Abortion and the right to life

To answer my opponent's question, I believe abortion is morally justifiable up until the point where there is the possibility of the child being independent of the mother. To be charitable, I will not argue against the first premise of my opponent's syllogism, I will argue solely against the third premise, and thus the conclusion. Throughout my argument, I will avoid bringing up extreme cases such as rape, and when abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother (my argument can be applied to these cases though). Let us define the unborn as separate human beings who are completely contingent upon the mother. It is common knowledge that the unborn relies completely upon the mother for nutrients and an immune system. Advocates of the syllogism presented by my opponent treat the right to life as unproblematic. The right to life can be defined as the right to the bare necessities to live. When applied to abortion one question comes to mind: what if someone's right to life is contingent upon another person? If we want to define the unborn as human beings, the unborn's right to life is no greater or less than anybody else's right to life. This is why I am going to avoid extreme cases such as when abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. Now let me present a hypothetical: there is a rock star that is dying from a deadly disease which can only be cured if he is "connected" to your kidneys for 9 months. There is a risk you may die and you definitely will be bedridden, your diet and exercise will be carefully monitored by doctors. The question is: does this rock star have a right to your kidneys? No. The rock star has no right to demand use of your kidneys as his due. He has no right against you to use your kidneys. Only you can decide whether to let him use your kidneys or not. Let us say you consent and allow him to use your kidneys. It still is not his right to have use of your kidneys. It is only out of kindness you allow him to use your kidneys. You still reserve the full right to deny the rock star the use of your kidneys as you have to right to deem who can use your kidneys. A pro-life activist must make the claim the rock star has the right to use your kidneys otherwise they are being hypocritical in thinking the unborn have the right to its mother but, a rock star does not have the right to your kidneys to save his life. Let's put it in another sense: does someone who needs an organ (a kidney, heart, liver, etc) have the right to another person's organs? My opponent must answer yes. I say no, simply because it is not theirs to demand. A person in need of a liver cannot demand someone give them a piece of their liver. It is not their place to demand someone go through surgery and the many months of recovery. Even if someone initially consents to the surgery they can still recant their consent as that remains their right. In both of these situations above there is a constant. The person(s) in need do not live because it is their moral right to demand what is not theirs but, because of the kindness of the donor. In the same way the unborn does not develop into a human being because of its inherent right to what is not theirs but, instead, because of the kindness of the mother. In all of these situations, a person is contingent upon another person. This makes their right to the bare necessities of life invalid simply because what they need to live infringes upon what is not and would never be theirs except for the niceness of another human being. Second, while it is wrong to kill an innocent human being what makes the unborn innocent? Innocence implies having done no wrong. But, the inherent nature of a fetus means it has and will do wrong. My question now is as follows: is acting like a parasite right? The unborn acts as parasites simply because they "sucks" vital nutrients from the mother in order to grow. The unborn act as a parasites "stealing" vital nutrients from the mother. Is harming another person for your own good morally correct? While some may argue it is the unborn's inherent nature to "steal" these nutrients, the same argument can be applied to a tumor or a tapeworm. Does that make them innocent because it is their nature to do what they do? This leads to my final point, abortion is morally correct simply because it is self-defense. Self-defense is the response to an imminent threat and if a person feels their safety is threatened they can morally use force to stop the threat. The unborn human is a threat simply because of its complete dependency upon the mother's nutrients and immune system. This dependency means the mother is losing vital nutrients needed to keep her own body healthy. This dependency lasts for 9 months and increases as the fetus grows. The mother has the right to use force to stop the threat within her. This force is otherwise known as an abortion. The mother basically has two moral options to avoid irreparable harm to her. First, they can supplement their diet. Or, second, they can have an abortion. Both options are moral. Throughout this argument I have conceded that the unborn were human from fertilization. (That in itself is a debate). In my first point, I have attacked the premise "the unborn have a right to life" and the premise "every human has an inherent right to life". My second point attacks the unsaid premise that a fetus is completely innocent. My last point directly attacks the conclusions and shows why it is moral to have an abortion. A human being, and as a human being the unborn, cannot have the right to live if their right to live is contingent upon somebody else as it is transforming from a right into the kindness of another person.