Late term abortion is wrong, and ought to be illegal

Correction: I did not say emotional feeling and reason develop, but that the rights do: " 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." That is Human Rights develop. You say: "I would argue that people are not naturally inclined to interact." I say: Balderdash! Not only is your statement refuted by the existence of social structures, or rules, in all groups of people ever encountered, but is refuted by logical evolutionary analysis. Group structures, and their cohesion, would logically play a role in a persons ability to live and reproduce, and thus it would make sense that traits which encouraged it would evolve, or at least not be thrown out, being that pretty much all mammals have grouping tendencies. Behavior is extremely regular+there is logical evolutionary benefit = There is strong evidence to call behavior NATURAL If you look to my argument that human rights are products of our natural qualities you will see that it is logical, and based off of premises which are evident, that is that reason, feeling and interaction are natural qualities of people. "People don't have to show others "rights" if it is beneficial to the self as Mr. Hitler proved." - Absolutely, I never claimed that they did have to. However those that do not, are felt to be abhorrent and immoral by people who have a full knowledge of the facts (that is including knowledge that there is No reason to think of Jews,gays,etc as sub-human) Being that (as I stated in arg.1): "their is no reason whatsoever that... (the babes in question) ought not be treated as persons", and your lack of demonstration of such reasons, their extermination ought logically to be as abhorrent as was that perpetrated by Hitler. You essentially claim that the good of the self is what makes natural morality, I say that this proves you have a misunderstanding of what morality traditionally means, and probably lack any understanding of contemporary evolutionary theory on the matter. In your population control argument you state: "The more babies aborted the more room there is for me to live" which follows with your above flawed perspective on natural morality. By the same token one could say Hitler was eminently moral on the basis that he killed a lot of people, and this is just not how people understand the term morality. I do not claim that there is no population problem, and I do not claim that it is not morally imperative that we in some way deal with it, though I do claim that your understanding of the morality of the situation is quite impaired. You are right to say that I did not directly address it though. I would say that in all cases of moral quandary including one must look at the possible scenarios, measure each part, and weigh out the best outcome. To morally justify population control which includes late term abortions, you must first measure late term abortions on its own merits, and compare it to the moral imperative of population control. As I stated in my first argument: "Babies of said development are already treated as people when they are born pre-mature. Not doing so for their un-birthed counterparts begs for an answer to the question: why? There is no good answer." You have not provided any reason for treating babies of the same development differently, and I still maintain that there is not any good reason for doing such, on the basis that we respect people for what they are in themselves, not on the basis of external factors like particular location, or dependancy. Finally I admit that, whether or not you are planning to argue that I have not proven that late term abortions ought to be illegal, I have not proven such a thing, and based on your objection of population control no less, though not your immoral reasoning for it. Such a thing would take a lot m