Resolved: Abortion Laws violate Human Rights Law

I now move to my rebuttals. "Human rights were not created by being born. They are created by the collective opinions of individuals at a time granting what they believed was good should be available to all people. "If human rights are not intrinsic, then they are not universal. If we allow the collective opinions of individuals at a time to determine Human Rights, that means that Human Rights themselves are subjective and relative. If we accept this view, we cannot indict such countries as Saudi Arabia for their suppression of Women's rights, nor can we indict countries like China for their suppression of free speech and free press. If all it takes to grant human rights is for society to accept someone as human, we can argue that countries that practice slavery are not open to criticism, for their society does not accept slaves as human, and thus does not need to extend human rights to them. Likewise, following my opponent's logic, an embryo or fetus need only be accepted as human to experience human rights. Given that it is biologically human, will develop into a human capable of reason, speech, and morality, what good reason do we have to deny it Human Rights? The fact that it doesn't look like a Human? The fact that it doesn't reason as we expect it to? The fact that it doesn't have the same thought capability as an adult human? The fact that it cannot speak or make sounds similar to what we expect Humans to? All of these qualifications are subjective in and of themselves. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states unequivocally that ALL humans are to enjoy the rights listed in the document. It also describes the rights as "inalienable," and "fundamental. " All of this runs counter to the assertion that Human Rights are subjective, dependent upon the society of the day. Furthermore, the document states in the Second article "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind. .. " "To say that killing an embryo is violating human rights is to say that killing sperm every time someone has sex is a violation of human rights. An embryo simply a zygote(cell created from 2 parent's gametes) that has divided it self multiple times and has the good chance of becoming alive. It is just like the spermatozoa I mentioned, which also have a chance at becoming alive(though to be fair a far less chance if I say so myself). "This analogy is fundamentally flawed. A zygote, left on its own in the right conditions, will become a human infant. This is what makes it a zygote. Put a spermatozoa in the same conditions, and it will not become a human infant. A spermatozoa requires the egg in order to make life. A zygote is the fertilized egg, it requires nothing more than the mother's womb to make life. For the same reason, the argument so often put forth by proponents of the pro-choice movement that a fetus is similar to clump cells, or that an embryo is alike to menstrual bleeding, is also incorrect. The zygote WILL develop into a human infant. It may die in the womb, but it is fundamentally different from any other cell in the human body. It is not merely a clump of cells, it is life developing. A zygote consists of independent genetic material, and the building blocks to make life. Clumps of skin cells or spermatozoa lack complete building blocks to make life, and sperm only have half the puzzle. To summarize:1) My opponent would make Human Rights subjective, dependent upon the whims of society at the time, when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states otherwise. Furthermore, along with that position comes multiple problems. If Human Rights are subjective, and dependent upon society at the time, then slavery was perfectly acceptable, and there was nothing justifying the Emancipation Proclamation or any other Abolitionist movements. Likewise, if a society were to suddenly accept a different species as human, we would extend all societal human rights to that species as well, regardless of the fact that they are not actually human.2) My opponent's classification of a zygote as akin to spermatozoa ignores the fact that a zygote in a womb, alone, will generate life, while a spermatozoa in a womb alone will not. A spermatozoa requires an egg, and as such is fundamentally different from a zygote, an already fertilized egg. Becase a zygote is life, in the process of developing, and furthermore, because it is Human life, we must extend it Human Rights as laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and to maintain Abortion Laws while being signatories to the Declaration is to fail in our obligation to uphold those rights. I look forward to my opponent's response.