Abortion should be legal

I would like to begin by affirming the emotional sensitivity of this topic. My hope is to have a respectful and constructive discussion without offending either side. I hope any readers will not automatically vote for the side they personally agree with, but the side that makes the best developed argument. Pro asks me to rebut their points, so I'll get right to it. Since Pro is making a positive claim I assume they have burden of proof. The UN declaration of Universal Human Rights means almost nothing in regards to abortion. It's well known that the UN has very little real power or enforcement ability. Sure, Article 1 says that people are born free and equal in dignity and rights, but do members of the UN security council (Russia, China, for example...) actually practice that? Some UN members are the worst violators of human rights on the planet. As such, it's a pretty weak argument to base the definition of human rights on what the UN says. Clearly this UN document is not legally binding because many countries, including the United States, still have laws against abortion. Furthermore, just because the UN says people are born with human rights means nothing to the unborn. The UN is obviously not trying to make a statement about abortion here. They are simply saying people are born with rights - not that they have zero rights before birth. Pro is committing a logical fallacy called "denying the antecedent." It works like this: "If it rains, then I will be wet. It's not raining, therefore I'm not wet." But I could be wet for other reasons, such as if I'm in a swimming pool or taking a shower. Same thing here "If you're born, you have human rights. You're not born, therefore you don't have rights." This is clearly a denying the antecedent fallacy. Once again, Article 1 is a pretty bad example. In fact, the unborn DO have legal rights. American law recognizes an unborn fetus as an individual with individual rights at every point in pregnancy. In 2004, the federal government passed into law the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which makes it illegal to harm (either intentionally or unintentionally) an unborn child. The law defines "unborn child" as follows: "the term 'unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term 'child in utero' or 'child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." This means that if drunk driver hits a pregnant woman who, as a result, loses her baby, he can be charged with homicide even if the mother survives. This remains true whether the mother is 4 or 40 weeks pregnant. The fetus is protected by this law at every stage of development. In addition, 29 states have also passed similar "feticide" laws. The point here is that the federal government and 29 States recognize that a fetus has individual rights protected by law as a member of the Homo sapiens species at every stage of development. [1] Pro stresses this concept of children only having rights after they are born. I would like to hear Pro justify how a child has no rights 30 seconds before birth, but suddenly assumes them 30 seconds after. Is a baby really not fully human until the second it leaves the womb? How about 30 minutes before? How about 3 days? What about after leaving the womb but before the umbilical cord is cut? What about after the cord is cut, since the baby is still completely dependent on others for survival and its brain is still not developed? I am interested to hear my opponent's distinction of when human life begins. Where's the line? I am not going to address cases of rape or incest. People love to bring this up, but these cases are only a minute fraction of total abortions performed and I will admit they warrent special consieration. To have a real discussion about this issue, we need to focus on the bulk of abortion cases. [1] http://www.gpo.gov...