Abortion on Demand Should Be Illegal

Thank you for your timely response, and I apologize for mine being untimely. I will begin with rebuttals.It has been my experience that those who are pro-choice tend to flip-flop all over the place when they are asked to give a standard for when a fetus becomes a living human person. I ask you, cakerman, to establish a particular set of criteria so that, when all of these criteria are met, the fetus becomes a living human person with the right not to die. A fetus is already a person at conception, I don't believe anyone who is serious about the pro-choice debate really disputes this fact, because doing so would be disingenuous. My criteria for when a fetus should be legally protected from abortion, just to be on the safer side (for both the fetus and the mother) would be not to perform abortion past 20-21 weeks. To expand upon my criteria, the Thalamus doesn't form in human beings until the period of 23-25 weeks. The thalamus is what allows the fetus to feel pain, or anything at all. While fetuses begin forming pain receptors at 8 weeks it is a common misconception that fetuses actually feel pain at that age due to reflexive movements when prodded with objects, sharp or not.I ask you to include all criteria that you think are relevant to deciding if it is a human life so that you don't have to add on any more criteria later on in the debate.I feel like I'm being boxed into a contradiction with these questions, human life begins at the second the egg is fertilized, no more criteria is needed.Thirdly, I believe it should be counted as a person because any other point is automatically inconsistentAgain, I don't think anyone being genuine to the argument would present that point.If the fetus is a living human person at that point, then killing it would be just as terrible as killing any other living human persons. Killing it would be a homicideAccording to your point here, so would having sex and getting a girl pregnant. In fact, because thousands and thousands of embedded zygotes die when fertilization occurs does that make sex a case of thousands of involuntary manslaughters?Obviously, illegalizing abortion would cause more unsafe abortions that could endanger the mothers. My answer is rather blunt: I care about the child's life, but if a mother tries to kill her child, she ought to die.This pro-life argument is so fallacious, it would be like saying people who take medication to kill parasites such as tapeworm should be sentenced to death for it.It would be like saying if we make raping children illegal, then child rapists might get hurt in the process.No, I don't think that is where the logic leads. There is a far leap and many bounds to get from exercising your right of choice over your own body to the legality of child rape, or any rape for that matter.The only sad part is that the fetus would die in the process, but that would have happened anyway if abortion were legal.Does this not discredit the entirety of your argument? if the fetus is going to die regardless, as you've admitted, why do we not ensure that it is legal and safe to prevent as many casualties as possible?While I do not believe some person's rights should trump the same rights of another, I do believe some rights are inherently more valuable. For example, my right not to be murdered by you is greater than your right to do whatever you want with your body.Comparing the act of an adult murdering another (assumed, correct me if I'm wrong) adult to the act of aborting a non-developed fetus from your own womb.the mother's right of convenience is less than the child's right not to be murdered.Your right of convenience is less than an innocent insect's right not to be mercilessly slaughtered, but I bet you do it en mass every day, we all do. The right to abortion isn't a thing of convenience, it's the right to know that you're not forced to bring a child into a world where it can't be properly nourished, or not being forced to adopt out your child only for him/her to have a high risk of aging out of the system without proper parents, or not being forced to add to an already super-inflated population.and by engaging in sex, you automatically are responsible for those risks and responsibilities. You can't simply murder another person because it didn't work out. The baby, if it is a living human person, has the simple human right of not being killed.I have been presented with this argument times aplenty, and all I have to reply with is that forced abstinence doesn't work, and is not favorable if you want people to stop having abortions.There are several problems with this. First, this obviously doesn't apply to pregnant mothers, otherwise, pregnancy would be illegal.There is one glaring flaw here, you are undermining the fetuses rights. If you cannot unlawfully use a pregnant woman's organs via (unwanted) pregnancy then does this mean the fetus cannot commit a crime? This may seem like a silly question but it is a serious one, if you are giving the fetus rights equal to (or in this case greater than) a woman why can this fetus not be charged in court for illegal use of someone else's organs?1) It is a life, and you know it.This is the correct option.The first case should be illegal because that is 1st-degree murder. The second case should be outlawed because that would be manslaughter. The third case is actually the only one that is legally and morally justifiable. Therefore, if abortion on demand should be legal, my opponent had the burden of demonstrating that a fetus is not a life and we can certainly know that. If it even could be a life, it should not be killed.Then again, is impregnating a woman and unknowingly killing thousands and thousands of embedded zygotes with unique genetic codes not able to be put under the second category? If they are thousands of lives and you don't know it or know that you're killing them doesn't that mean you're committing thousands of involuntary manslaughters?Lastly, I would like to point out that the greatest evils in the history of mankind have occurred because people have decided who and who is not a human based on personal convenience. Slaveholders said black people were not human so that they could have slaves. Nazis said Jews were not human so that they could kill them, and mothers say their children are not human so that they can kill their child. Anyone who calls their own child a burden and wants to kill it should bring tears to our eyes. We are witnessing the greatest Holocaust the world has ever seen.This is a severe case of undermining the victims of slavery and the holocaust. Comparing the brutality of forced human labor for no pay and the attempted extermination of an entire race of people to women exercising their right of choice is EXTREMELY disingenuous, and dare I say shameful for you to do.