Abortion is Always First-Degree Murder

Hello Pro, and thank you for this interesting topic. My case will be a very simple one, as I only need to demonstrate that at least one case of abortion is not first-degree murder. If I can sucessfully do this, then I win the round under Pro's resolution. To do this, I will not, of course, be using the arguments that Pro claims Con could use. Rather, my argumentation will be centered around the fact that a fetus is not a person. ConstructiveA person is "one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties" [1]. Of course, this person must be recognized as a human being. Murder is "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought" [2]. Thus, to qualify for the definition of murder, a person has to be maliciously killed. An abortion clearly does not meet this burden. The reason this is the case can be seen in the definition of a person as a subject of rights and duties, as human. To be human, one has to have cognitive abilities, that is, sentience [3] [4]. This ability to have sentience, to reason, is the result of evolution, which caused humans to develop a frontal cortex to allow for sentience, reason, thoughts, emotions, etc. A fetus at three weeks does not have this. At 3 weeks fetal development, a fetus barely has arms or legs, and certainly does not have a developed brain [5]. The absence of this cognitive ability is clearly acceptable grounds for termination, as a human being has not formed yet. We see this standard come into play when we allow for the unplugging of braindead patients on life support. They have lost all cognitive ability, their brain is not functioning, and, as a result, they lose derivative right to life claims. Thus, they can be unplugged, terminating their existence, though, by that time, they are already dead. If we similarly apply this standard, we can clearly see that a fetus does not have the same rights claims that human beings do because they lack sentience and cognitive abilities that rights are designed to protect in the first place. Thus, since I have demonstrated that a fetus is not a person, abortion, at least in some instances, is not first degree murder. RebuttalSince my constructive undermines the entire assumption underlying Pro's case, there is little rebuttal work to be done here. However, I would like to take some time to point out that the entirety of Pro's argumentation is appeal to emotion and assertion. Pro never substantiates the claim that a fetus is equivalent to a human being, but instead throws around buzzwords like murder, victim, etc. In order to win this round, Pro will have to substantiate the abortion = murder logic that is, quite literally, assumed from the top of the argument without any substantial proof otherwise. That is, Pro has to prove that fetuses have rights claims in the same way that humans do. Thank you, and I look forward to reading Pro's future argumentation. Sources: 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...3. http://www.sciencedaily.com...4. http://science.howstuffworks.com...5. http://americanpregnancy.org...