Late term abortion is wrong, and ought to be illegal

Hello stylezco, thanks for joining me. This happens to be my first debate as well, and I signed up last night. Anyways... I will rebut your objections one by one, beginning with the broadest. You object to the idea of "Human Rights", and I understand your objection. The natural world, it initially seems, does not provide us with any "rights". Insects steal our blood, coyotes our children, and natural disasters our societies, lives and livelihoods, all without any consideration whatsoever upon the effects these things have upon our well being. Many people look to the supernatural to provide an explanation as to how we are in some way different from the rest of nature, and bound by "higher" laws in how we treat one another, though this argument would in one way provide a source for these rights, being that such an assertion is quite beyond my reasoning capability I will not try to tackle it. Instead I submit that nature does provide these "Human Rights" of which I speak. Specifically, they are the natural product of Human emotional feeling and reason which develops when people interact, and need a framework for their interaction. Human feeling, reason and interaction, are all natural realities dictated by our natural evolution. Rights are concepts, that is they are developed in people and I am not claiming that they are written directly into our DNA, nor am I claiming that all people develop the same said concepts, or necessarily any at all. I am claiming that such types of concepts naturally and dependably arise in groups of people. If you do not believe in the idea of "human rights" there is not much that I can debate with you on this matter, this is one of the scenario's I was worried about when I said in my 1st post: "Though I must admit if we disagree on too much there probably won't be much of a debate." Though I again submit that, thanks to the reasons stated above, said rights are naturally provided in regards to interaction between peoples, through Human nature and dependable social constructs which encourage said conceptual "rights" (governing human interaction) to come into being. Secondly, I did not define a "person" because I am not absolutely certain as to whether or not I would wish to confine the definition to only those stages of Homo Sapien development which are capable of thought. Instead I chose to submit that if a stage of Homo Sapien development is capable of thought, there is no reason to judge that it is to be denied Human Rights which others enjoy. My careful wording is because I believe that the argument that brain dead bodies are dead bodies, and not really what we mean when we say "people", has some merit, and I do not wish to argue against it. I do Not submit that that provably brain dead un-birthed babies ought to be protected. What I think on that is not material to the argument I am making. As to whether or not such "Human Rights" would extend to our furry friends, I hope that all my talk of Homo Sapien life stages made that clear, and though it is immaterial to my argument, I do happen to think that those which can be shown to think and feel in some manner, are sympathetic to people, and that they are also often naturally deigned worthy of rights in a manner similar to that I sketched out for people. As to your argument of population control, though I am generally of the opinion that such detached weighing of outcomes is not a "moral" practice (largely because I think it obvious that morality comes from a combination of natural feeling and reason, and though perhaps such weighing is logical and so in some sense "reasonable", I find it that I feel it is abhorrent), I must argue that even if one feels morally compelled to weigh matters of importance as such, that the abolition of late term abortion does not cause one to completely abandon the idea of population control, as types of effective contraceptives are many, and early abortions quite easy to carry out. No more