abortions

In keeping with the style of Pro I will keep the arguments brief.A new member of the homo sapiens species comes into being when the sperm and egg join resulting in the zygote. Before the zygote even implants in the mother's womb there have been 70 to 100 cell divisions. [1] Words like fetus, zygote etc. are merely technical terms to denote age and development, not whether it is human or not. The average life of a human (barring any problems) is:zygote -> embryo -> fetus -> baby -> infant -> toddler -> youth -> teenager -> adult -> elderlyThis is the same organism at every stage of life. Our system of law is also based on the existence of fundamental human rights. The US Founding Fathers described these fundamental rights in the declaration of independence: [2]We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.The order that the rights are listed in is important because they go in progression from the most fundamental. One cannot pursue happiness if one doesn't have liberty. One has no liberty if they don't have the right to life. The right to life is the most fundamental right anybody has. All other rights are built upon this. If you do not have this right, you have no rights at all.If a right is inalienable that means that it is yours by default; no government can grant it to you. If this was a right that a government has the authority to grant it is also a right that the government could revoke. Thus the earlier truth in the Declaration is that everyone is created equal.Now if a right is unalienable then it is illogical that it does not belong to the same organism at every stage of life. You either have fundamental rights or you do not. This is not to be confused with privileges granted by the state such as the right to drive, vote, etc...To deny the fundamental rights to the unborn is simply another form of discrimination like sexism or racism. This is a prejudice based solely on a single characteristic of the other person that attempts to dehumanize them in one fashion or another.My final argument will be that the Law already recognizes the responsibility of parents to provide for the needs of their children:Failure to Provide the Necessities of Life: Everyone is under a legal duty as a parent, foster parent, guardian or head of a family, to provide necessaries of life for a child under the age of sixteen years. [3]Now if the woman wishes to pass legal guardianship of the child off to someone else (adoption) then she is fully entitled to do that once she can safely do so.First Degree Murder: Murder occurs where the person who causes the death of a human being means to cause his death, or means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not. [4]As such I contend that abortion is the most egregious violation of the rights of the young human being. Abortions kills an innocent human being and is thus basically murder.[1] http://courses.washington.edu... [2] http://www.ushistory.org...[3] http://en.wikibooks.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...(Canadian_law)