Abortion Should Remain Legal Until Viability

Opening Arguments1. BiologyA new member of the homo sapiens species comes into being when the sperm and egg join resulting in the zygote. Before the zygote even implants in the mother's womb there have been 70 to 100 cell divisions. [1] Words like fetus, zygote etc. are merely technical medical terms that denote age and development of the human being, not whether it is human or not. Embryo: In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development. [2]Fetus: In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo. [3]The average life of a human (barring any problems) is:zygote -> embryo -> fetus -> baby -> infant -> toddler -> youth -> teenager -> adult -> elderlyThis is the same organism at every stage of life. 2. PhilosophyOur system of law is based on the concept of the existence of fundamental human rights. The US Founding Fathers described these fundamental rights in a philosophical statement in the declaration of independence: [4]We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The order that the rights are listed in is important because they go in progression from the most fundamental. One cannot pursue happiness if one doesn't have liberty. One can have no liberty if they don't have the right to life. The right to life is the most fundamental right anybody has. All other rights are built upon this. In essence, if you do not have this right, you can have no rights at all. If a right is inalienable that means that it is yours by default, and is not granted to you by any government. Otherwise, if this was a right that a government had the authority to grant to an individual, it logically becomes a right of the government to revoke this right as it chooses. Thus the necessity of the aforementioned truth in the Declaration was that everyone is created equal. If a right is inalienable, it is illogical to state that it does not belong to the same organism at every stage of its life. Every member of the human race either has fundamental rights or they do not. This fundamental right is not to be confused with privileges granted by the state such as the right to drive, vote, etc. ..3. DiscriminationTo deny the fundamental rights to the unborn is simply another form of discrimination like sexism or racism. This is a prejudice based solely on a single characteristic of the other person that attempts to dehumanize them in one fashion or another. In all cases, this becomes an exercise of justifying the denial of fundamental human rights by qualifying that in order to recognize the right to life of the individual they have to be Human AND something. This is readily shown buy comparing ourselves to other mammals. Let's take a cow, I can kill and eat it without any moral or legal ramifications. Yet until a child is somewhere around at least 1-2, a cow is an objectively superior animal. Yet, I would not be permitted to kill a newborn. This is logically incongruous, unless being human is more important than any other characteristic. We have a history of denying rights based on personal prejudice. The two most obvious ones were:You have to be human AND white - justification for slaveryYou have to be human AND not Jewish - justification for the holocaust4. ViabilityGiven the title of the debate Pro's argument is likely going to focus on viability being something unique that grants the unborn a special status. Yet logically, viability apart from the mother is merely another stage of development of the new human being. The unborn child is the same organism before and after "viability. " In both cases the child is living in the environment that God/Nature/Evolution (take your pick) meant it to be in at that time. In fish, the female fish releases eggs into the water and the male inseminates them there. They then settle to the bottom of the lake or river and are on their own from that time forth. Thus it is obvious that, for sexual reproduction, fertilization is the beginning of life for a new organism. For mammals we have the ability to protect our young within the mother until a much later stage of development. This enables mammals to have certain advantageous traits including high intelligence. As such, it is against our very nature as mammals and humans to kill off our young in the womb. Viable: Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions. [5]The unborn is perfectly viable in the environment that it is supposed to be in at that stage of development. If I were to take any adult and jettison them into outer space or give them a pair of cement boots and drop them in the river, they'd be non-viable in those environments. Additionally, a newborn child, or someone in a severe medical condition are just as dependent on others for survival. Thus, unless the argument is that this condition of dependence removes one's rights as a human being, the entire concept of viability is a fallacious argument in and of itself.5. Responsibilities of GuardiansI believe that we can agree that parents do not own their children. However, they are the natural guardians of those children and have a grave duty (and associated powers) towards their children. My final argument will be that the Law already recognizes the responsibility of parents to provide for the needs of their children:Failure to Provide the Necessities of Life: Everyone is under a legal duty as a parent, foster parent, guardian or head of a family, to provide necessaries of life for a child under the age of sixteen years. [6]Now this shows a logical disconnect in the current law. It has been clearly demonstrated that the unborn is the biological child of the parents. Additionally, the law mandates that the parents, being the natural guardians of the child, are obligated to provide for the needs of the child until they reach an age where they are able to provide for themselves. Additionally, the law would not permit me to intentionally kill my child:First Degree Murder: Murder occurs where the person who causes the death of a human being means to cause his death, or means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not. [7]Now, if the woman desires to pass legal guardianship of the child off to someone else (adoption), then she is fully entitled to do so. ConclusionI have clearly shown that the unborn are:1) individual members of the human race, 2) that the foundation of our justice system is that everyone is created equal and thus equal before the law,3) that the justification for abortion is just another form of discrimination4) that the viability argument is based on discrimination5) parents have a duty to provide for minor children until they are able to provide for themselvesIt is thus my contention based on my detailed arguments that the non-"viability" of the child to live outside of the mother's womb at certain stages of development is a non rational argument for abortion. As such abortion should not remain legal until viability. I look forward to Pro's opening roung. [1] . http://courses.washington.edu...[2] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[3] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[4] . http://www.ushistory.org...[5] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[6] . http://en.wikibooks.org...[7] . http://tinyurl.com...