Abortion should be Illegal in cases that do not threaten the life of the mother/baby

Rebuttals: p1. I stated in p1 that I was referring to healthy fetuses. Yes, an unhealthy baby can die of natural causes before this. However, since the right to life comes from nature (as man cannot create an unalienable right), and since my opponent has agreed this right is unalienable, then only natural causes can remove this right. Man cannot remove a right he did not give to begin with. c1. Rebuttal: p1. By nature, a healthy fetus will become a baby p2. By nature, a baby has a right to life c1. Therefore, a fetus has a RIGHT to a right to life My opponent's analogy is false. Societal standards and natural standards are incomparable. The right to life is unalienable by natural standards. The right to give lectures as a PhD can be retracted by the Serbian campus, as this right is not unalienable. My opponent could choose not to become a PhD, could drop out of school, decide to pursue a Master's degree, etc. A baby can become nothing but a baby or dead. Therefore, since it cannot NOT become a person, the right to life cannot be taken away by people. Even assuming that all of the above is false (which it isn't), the analogy doesn't quite work. A more accurate analogy would be that the Serbian campus arbitrarily denied my opponent the right to ever give lectures, regardless of the fact that he soon would have his PhD, although all other PhD's are allowed to speak on campus. This is an imperfect analogy, but it's better. Further Rebuttals 1) My opponent defies his own logic here. By drinking and smoking while pregnant, the woman will most likely give birth to a deformed or otherwise disabled child [1]. This child will unequivocally be a human being. Therefore this human was harmed by his mothers actions, something my opponent states he wishes not to happen. My opponent drops the public masturbation/sex rebuttal. This rebuttal is an example of a use of body autonomy that does not "harm" other people but still wrong. If my opponent cites it as psychological harm, abortion causes trauma as well [2]. Therefore my opponent's logic is flawed. Furthermore, abortion CAN harm people, both mother and child, as already demonstrated. 2) Point conceded by my opponent. 3) I was pointing out a flaw in my opponent's logic. Reduction of an unemployment rate doesn't make something a good idea when it harms people, as my opponent proved by condemning murder. 4) Prior to Roe v. Wade, although abortion was surely less safe (with much less technology), only about 1,000 abortions occurred each year [3]. Now, as it is legal, over 1 million abortions occur per year [3]. Although the percentage of people being harmed was higher, the numbers harmed, which my opponent seems to have more interest in, are higher now, in both psychological and physical harm as well as plenty more lives being ended and more rights stripped. In addition, 58% of Americans disagree with abortion, so it harms the majority of people morally[4]. I was stating that using your previous logic, many laws could be overturned. However, with the "don't harm others" addendum, fewer need be overturned, but flaws still remain concerning abortion. Adoption IS an alternative to abortion. Both follow the same logic for the situation of an unwanted baby, with one premise change. They are alternatives. The crucial difference is life vs. death, human rights preserved vs. destroyed. Abortion p1. Mother cannot keep baby p2. Mother kills baby c1. Unwanted baby is gone Adoption p1. Mother cannot keep baby p2. Mother gives baby away c1. Unwanted baby is gone I apologize for the comment cited by my opponent, it was not intended as an insult, but I too wish to keep this debate friendly. Conclusion Abortion should be illegal because of its violation of the rights of future American citizens. Americans cannot decide to strip these rights, as they were not given by Americans but by nature and nature's God. Thanks to my opponent for the debate. Sources will be in the comments.