Abortion should be illegal

Thank you for your rebuttals, Con.I shall respond to my opponent's arguments against my contentions before responding to her case.Rebuttal #1 - The zygote/embryo/fetus is a human lifeMy opponent has confused the debate over when a human develops the right to life (or personhood) with the debate over when life begins, which has largely been settled. My opponent's first source points to a home page and not an article, but I assume that the article she was attempting to link to was http://www.thesurvivaldoctor.com.... This article, in fact, opens by saying,Pro-lifers generally belief life begins at fertilization. So pro-choicers generally believe no, it doesn’t.… Right?Wrong.[...]In 2006, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Ethics published their opinion on “Using Preimplantation Embryos for Research.” In it, they say, “If the preimplantation embryo is left or maintained outside the uterus, it cannot develop into a human being.” Did you catch that: “… into a human being”?The question for many doctors and scientists is not, “When does life begin?” but, “When does that life become a human being?”[1]Moving on, there are quite a few problems with attempting to justify abortion with the ethics-based personhood arguments. For example, how is declaring that a living human being may be less than a person not a form of prejudice and ageism? Delineating between humans and sub-humans within the species is not something that any philosopher or ethicist, no matter how astute, is truly qualified to do.Also, if the moment when the preborn becomes alive or a person is undetermined, how is abortion then justified? To illustrate my point I will present an analogy. If a demolition expert is charged with the task of demolishing a building and he is unaware of whether or not there are people inside, would he be morally justified in proceeding? Or would the moral option be to wait until he is certain that no one would be killed by his actions before proceeding? The latter, obviously, and the same principle can be applied to the abortion debate.As for my opponent's claim that some of the criteria of life that I presented are not met at conception, this claim is false. All of the criteria listed are active at the cellular level and present in the DNA,[2] with the exception of reproduction. As I pointed out, this criteria need only be met at some point in the life cycle. If my opponent still claims that the preborn does not meet these criteria than I challenge her to present a modern and credible source that affirms her claim. I will close this rebuttal by pointing out that the embryonic stage is reached at three weeks[3], whereas surgical abortion is performed during the eighth week at the earliest[4], therefore the embryonic view of personhood may actually be considered an argument for my side.Rebuttal #2 - There is a moral obligation to preserve innocent human lifeI will grant that, as my opponent says, the definition of innocence varies from person to person. Many people would regard self-defense as a morally innocent action, while I, as a pacifist, would not. However, I think that we can all safely agree, no matter what our philosophy, that a preborn is morally innocent. My opponent has certainly not presented any reason why we should not.As for the example my opponent presented, every philosophical system has its moral quandaries. This does not mean that the system fails. Also, I doubt that my opponent truly disagrees with my claim that we have a moral obligation to preserve life for two reasons.1. Within her own example, we have the option of taking one innocent life or another, a moral conundrum. However, I doubt that she would say that it is acceptable to take both innocent lives.2. She makes her case for abortion rights by saying that it is important to the quality of life of women. (e.g., "Abortion being illegal wouldn't give these women the freedom of choice, a choice to keep their lives from going down the drain.") If quality of life is important and worth defending we can safely assume that life itself is also important and worth defending.3. The same moral conundrum may be leveled against the utilitarianism she espouses.Rebuttal #3 - This moral obligation is of the highest orderSaying that we were not concerned with killing Hitler is not an argument against my claim that preserving innocent human life is a moral obligation of the highest order. First of all, Hitler could not have been considered to be morally innocent, therefore he falls outside the bounds of the moral obligation. Secondly, the very reason the Allies sought to eliminate Hitler was to preserve innocent life.Also, if utilitarianism is defined as "maximizing happiness and reducing suffering" then we may safely assume that preventing the death of innocents via abortion would qualify.Rebuttal #4 - "My case"As I have already stated, if quality of life is important than we may also assume that life itself is important. And because life is a prerequisite for quality of life, we may assume that it is more important than or supersedes the latter.Sources1. http://www.thesurvivaldoctor.com...2. http://www.nlm.nih.gov...3. http://www.mayoclinic.com...4. http://www.netdoctor.co.uk...