Resolved: Abortion Laws violate Human Rights Law

Now for my opening arguments. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted by the United Nations in 1948. In subsequent decades, these rights have come to encompass both negative and positive rights. We are primarily concerned with Article III of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. " The Right to Life, therefore, is established as a Human Right, something everyone is entitled to as per Article II of the same Declaration. But where do these Human Rights come from? Human Rights can come from three main places: 1) God, 2) The Government, or 3) the very fact that someone is Human, in and of itself. If Rights come from God, which God do they come from? Are they exclusively reserved for those who believe in that God, or are they extended to all Humanity regardless? And if they are extended to all Humanity regardless, what is the difference between saying they come from God, and saying they come from the very fact someone is Human? We can, therefore, put aside the assertion Rights come from God, for there are many Gods and Religions in this world, and if we cannot determine which God they originate from, they must come from every God, or no God at all. If they come from every God, we cannot assume the same rights come from each God, and if the same rights don't come from each God, there is no Universality to Human Rights. If Rights come from the Government, we can again say that there is no Universality. For if Rights are bestowed upon people by the Government, different Governments may choose differrent Human Rights, and neglect others, or choose to uphold no Human Rights at all. We are, therefore left with the conclusion that Human Rights come from the very fact that someone is Human, in and of itself. Now we come to a crucial question: What does it mean to be human? This is an age-old question, but for the purpose of this argument, we will consider the two main sides:1)That to be human is to be able to reason, moralize, and rationalize; or2)That to be human is to be biologically of the Human Species. In Article I of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN implicitly endorsed the first interpretation, by stating that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. "To summarize, Human Rights are rights that we are entitled to because we are Human, that is, we are endowed with reason and conscience. The Right to Life is a Human Right. There are inevitably problems with this. First, what of disabled or comatose people? They have niether the capacity to reason, nor a conscience in their state, yet we afford them certain Human Rights. Children also, especially infants, have niether the capacity to reason, nor a conscience. Yet, we afford them Human Rights as well. Clearly, Human Rights are not awarded based on the capacity or ability to Reason or moralize alone, but also the potential to Reason, to develop a Conscience. Now, we come to the crux of the argument. A Fetus, or an embryo for that matter, does not have the capacity to Reason, nor does it have a conscience. Yet, it arguably has more potential for these essential characteristics of Humanity than, say, a Comatose individual, or someone with severe Down Syndrome. Therefore, we should, by logic, afford the Fetus or embryo the basic Right to Life, a Human Right. I eagerly await my opponent's response.