Early abortion should be legal

My Argument: Abortion should not be legal because the fetus is human and therefore has the right to life. The fetus in the womb of the mother is alive since it is is composed of many cells. More importantly, the fetus has the nature of a human since it has human DNA. Humans do not have to speak, hear, have legs, and etc...to be considered human. Humanity goes beyond the physical. Even a person who is in a coma who has completely lost consciousness is still a human worthy of moral consideration. The United States has always recognized that the life of any human is valuable. So when people say that the value of humans is based on development, it is just false. It seems strange that people believe that the choice of the mother changes the status of the fetus from valuable to invaluable when there is no change in the nature of the fetus itself. Basically, it is obvious that being human in nature means to have a positive right to life. That said, there are some arguments against abortions that need to be addressed. Many people would recognize that the fetus is a human but would deny that the fetus is a person. The people who say this say that a person is someone who has moral consideration as opposed to someone who is human by nature. Then there is the argument about aliens which states that aliens would still have value if they came to earth. This would mean that life is not valuable just because the nature of the fetus is human. Then there is an argument about humans only having a negative right to life which means that that humans do not have a moral obligation to keep other humans alive. Though, apparently we do have an obligation to not kill people as well. Another argument against abortion is that since a cell in the human body has human DNA and is alive, and because it is okay to kill it, therefore it makes no difference to kill the cells of a fetus. The last main argument against abortion is that the fetus is a part of the woman and therefore the woman has the right to do whatever she wants to do with her body. The argument about the personhood of the fetus is very flawed since the people who make the claims have not really thought about what a person really is. A person who has value according to their definition is no different than a fetus. A person is not valuable because of their thoughts, feelings, or etc. A person could be brain dead and people would still treat the person as a person. So the personhood is not dependent on the things that a person can do, it is actually based on ontology. The very nature of the human is what makes a human being valuable. As for arguments about aliens, these do not work. Not only does it presuppose the existence of aliens, but the people who make this argument actually give human attributes to aliens making the aliens huaman. Basically, they are just calling humans by a different name. For example, people say that these aliens would have the morality of a human, the same functions of a human (unlike a real alien), and etc...making the alien very much human. So the nature of a human is what makes a life valuable. As for the argument about people only having a negative right to life, this also just isn"t true. When a mother has children, she has a moral obligation to feed them and keep them alive. While the mother can run away from her children and let them fend for themselves, she still has that moral obligation to take care of her children. Moral obligations do not go away even when a person fails to do what they are supposed to do. So we do actually have a positive right to life. As for the argument about the cells, while it might be okay to kill skin cells, they are cells in which have the nature of skin. In other words, a skin cell is by nature a skin cell. But the difference is that the cells of a fetus have the nature of human development. A fertilized egg has the nature of a whole human being which is not the case for a skin cell which only has the nature of skin. So this argument does not hold up. Lastly, the argument about the life being apart of the mother has one huge problem. It is that this would mean that a woman is now defined as a person with four arms, four legs, and two heads. The fetus is clearly a separate human than the mother. While it is true that the mother feeds the life inside her, the fetus is not the same person as herself. Therefore, the arguments for abortion do not effectively counter the arguments against abortion. Rebuttals: a. I don't really get the "freedom not restricted unless justified" argument. I am not sure if this was supposed to be a counter argument or not. b. My opponent says that not all killing is wrong. This is completely true. That said, the whole debate is about whether murdering a baby is okay or not. My opponent has to first objectively establish what is murder before she argues that abortion is not murder. c. The bodily rights argument has many flaws. The first being that it asserts that we have bodily rights. My opponent has to first objectively establish we have that right before their argument becomes worth discussing. If they can't, and it is only their opinion that woman have these rights, then it is subjective and meaningless since it has no impact on anyone. d. My opponent then argues that we don't see it as an unjust burden to demand that people don't poison the water supply. I agree. Our society also doesn't see it as an unjust burden to demand that people don't murder each other. That is another reason why abortion is so wrong. e. The case for equal value argument is one I have always thought to be horrible. Anyone could make up situations in which could never happen. But the fact is that if a person were to choose the baby instead of the embryos, that doesn't make them non-human. And if a person were to choose the embryos, that doesn't make the child non-human. Here is another situations...five kids fall in a sink hole and you only have time to save one of them. One of them happens to be your son! So your decisions to save the son over the others doesn't make the others non-human or less vauable. f. Not all people think that the death penalty is the proper punishment for any crime including murder. So this argument does not hold up. However, it does depend on whether the murder was unintentional, forced, or etc...But in cases where the mother knew exactly what she was doing, I agree that she should be put to death. g. My opponent then argues that making abortions illegal wouldn't stop them. I don't understand why they bring this up. I mean, using this logic we should take away all laws since people would do bad things anyway. So my opponents arguments do not really hold up. Thanks for a good round!