Abortion

It should be understood that Pro's case is to defend all abortions, not just some.Premise I: Human Rights.The definition of Human Rights might be debatable, but the most agreeable definition is the UN Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR)[1]. By this definition of Human Rights, we see that abortion is a violation. This is seen by observing Article II, which claims that everyone (all humans) have the rights listed in the Declaration without distinction of any kind. Article VI then says that the Government must recognize everyone (all humans) as persons. Article III says everyone has the right to Life and Liberty.Article II:Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as... ...birth or other status.Article VI:Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.Article III:Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.Even the US Constitution is in agreement. The Constitution, in the Fourteen Amendment, established that all persons have the right to life, liberty, and property. I will detail this more in Premise II.[1] http://tinyurl.com...Premise II: Personhood.It can be established with ease that the definition of a person is being human. While the law references humans when discussing persons, it never gives an end-all criteria. Therefore, it can be assumed the only requirement is being human. A common misconception is that you must be born. However, this is only the requirement for a citizen. A clear look at the Fourteenth Amendment shows us this:"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States... ...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"The amendment defines citizens as persons who are born in the US (or naturalized). However, after defining the term citizen, the amendment goes on to say all persons of the right to life (and others). It does not say all 'citizens' or 'person born/naturalized in the US.' So you need not be a citizen to have the right to life. A look at any definition of person shows us the criteria in action.A human being regarded as an individual (Oxford) [2]A human being (Merriam-Webster) [3]In general usage, a human being; (Legal Dictionary) [4]A living human (Free Dictionary) [5]A human being (Law.com) [6]A number of philosophical definitions will apply criteria (like being able to feel) but never explains why these criteria are needed. Why must a human feel pain to be a person? Some humans don't feel pain. Some aren't conscious and some can't feel emotion. These are performance-based criteria that fall short every time. [2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com...Argument I: Is the Fetus a Living Human?The Fetus is, without question, human. Albeit most definitions of Person only requires that much. In fact, non-living humans are still persons. This is why grave robbing is illegal, and why the government can't take the organs of dead people without having their consent prior to death. Some define being alive as having a heartbeat, or a conscious. However, we live in a modern world where science, not philosophy, must be the centerpiece of our legal system.Science already has a definition of what makes someone living. They define them with characteristics shared by all living things. After a long study, I found 12 total characteristics. These characteristics are as follows:Homeostasis / Metabolism / Organization / Genes / Feeding / Growth / Response / Adaption / Reproduction / Excretion / Movement / Respiration.The fetus fulfills each by week two (if not sooner.): The fetus will fulfill each criteria by the time the placenta is formed. Through the placenta, the fetus can maintain homeostasis [8], metabolism [9], feeding [10], adaption [11], excretion [12], and respiration [13]. The fetus has organization [14], genes [15], growth [16], movement [17], and can respond to stimuli (which is how it knows to move down the fallopian tube and to grow the placenta.) As a zygote, it has reproduction (cell-division) [16].The Zygote is defined by scientists as an eukaryotic cell [7]. Biologically speaking, all eukaryotic cells are living. To sum this up in a syllogism:P1) All eukaryotic cells are living.P2) All zygotes are eukaryotic cells.C) All zygote are living.Therefore, while living prior (as a unicellular zygote would have a different criteria), the fetus is empirically alive by 1-2 weeks of age. Therefore, the fetus is a living human, and thus a person. Therefore, the fetus should be entitled human rights.[7] http://tinyurl.com...[8] http://tinyurl.com...[8] http://tinyurl.com...[9] http://tinyurl.com...[10] http://tinyurl.com...[12] http://tinyurl.com...[13] http://tinyurl.com...[14] http://tinyurl.com...[15] http://tinyurl.com...[16] http://tinyurl.com...[17] http://tinyurl.com...Argument II: Conflict of RightsSo now that we can establish that the fetus is a living human, and therefore a person, therefore holding the right to life... What about the Mother? The Supreme Court has, time and time again, reaffirmed the principle of how to handle conflicting rights. When two rights conflict, the right that is superior exceeds the inferior right. Or the right that leads to least consequence. We see this in cases where you can not scream 'Fire!' in a full building. Their right to life exceeds your right to scream "Fire!" We also see a conflict with business owners and gun owners. Your right to own guns does not exceed his right to property, and he can deny you entry if you have a gun.So what rights are in conflict? The Mother's right to privacy v the Fetus's right to life. We know the answer, as I'm not allowed to build a WMD in my basement, as the right to life of my neighbors exceeds my right to privacy. Likewise, I can not beat my children just because it's in the privacy of my home.The right to bodily autonomy could also be played, but the fetus also has the right to bodily autonomy, as it's a unique organism from the mother. The mother's right to choose must be superior to the fetus's right to life for Pro's case to work. However, the right to life is the 'mother right'... It surpasses all others, and is the right most others are based on.Argument III: All Abortions v Some AbortionWhile cases in which a Mother's health is at risk may be reasonable, this isn't the same as "all" or even "most" cases of Abortion. In fact, using Britain as an example, saving the mother's life accounts for 0.006% of all abortions, and only 0.3% are done to prevent the risk of possible death [18]. In the US, only 1% are for rape and incest [19]. Albeit, many question if rape and incest are even viable reasons to have an abortion.Pro must prove that all abortions must be legal.[18] http://tinyurl.com...[19] http://tinyurl.com...Conclusion:I shall allow Pro the floor now. Hopefully I have the work schedule to allow me more time to do more next round.