Abortion should be illegal

I feel your pain as my last 3 debates have been equally fruitless due to my opponent forfeiting on the second round each time. Now as for your stance I would ask that you clarify as to what/if any restrictions you think there should be. Specifically, what time frame in which you think should be legal and if there are any methods or reasons you are opposed to. Relevant definitions- Abortion: Also called voluntary abortion the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. (1) Murder: The killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law (2) My opening argument: Abortion is indistinguishable from murder. Therefore, I am arguing against abortions of any kind and for any reason except in the instance of danger to the mother. Instances of rape do not justify abortion- Some people may say, "What about cases of rape? " Rape is a special case and makes up a very small fraction of abortions. In fact, in the U. S. instances of rape are involved in less than 2% of abortions. However, say you don't have an abortion, and every time you look at your daughter you think about that horrible moment when you were raped. Would you say that it is not murder or ok to kill that toddler? Of course not. So why would you kill that same baby before they are born? That being said, on a personal note, I would be willing to compromise and make an exception for victims of rape just to save the other 98% but something tells me those on the pro-choice wouldn't be willing to make that compromise. Therefore it is irrelevant because it is simply a deflection and has no bearing on the opinion of those using it as justification. Being anti-abortion is not sexist or authoritarian- I believe that many things should be legal even though they go against my core values as a religious person. I don't care what others choose to do so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. I am not looking to impose my religious beliefs on others or reinforce patriarchal dominance over a woman's body. Now, this is where I have an issue with abortion, the government has not only a right, but a responsibility to protect human lives under the constitution. I believe that at conception an embryo is its own human life deserving of its own individual rights that ought not be infringed by anyone even the mother who carries it. Perhaps one of the worst talking points I have heard on the "pro-choice" side is that whether or not to have an a abortion is a deeply personal decision and should be left between the woman and her doctor. This is evil. The government should have a definition for human life if it promises to protect it. Individuals should not be allowed to determine what is and isn't a human being. Similar "logic" was used to justify slavery in the US. Certain individuals decided that other people shouldn't be considered human beings or granted human rights based on personal feelings and for convenience. A human being is not a subjective concept that changes based on a someone else's desire to afford a car or have more free time or to have a baby with a different gender. A human being is a living, growing being that can and ought to be scientifically defined and governmentally protected. Abortion is killing a whole, distinct, living organism- It is an indisputable and basic biological fact. There are 7 scientific qualifications for life: It must maintain homeostasis, be composed of cells, undergo metabolism, have capacity for growth, have the ability to adapt to the environment, be able to respond to stimuli, and have the capacity to reproduce. (3) An embryo meets all these criteria. But many things are considered organisms that aren't guaranteed life which brings us to the next point we must consider. Abortion kills human life- We have established that abortion kills an organism. Now the question is whether or not that organism is human. To answer that we must look at how each species is defined. Luckily, nature has already placed very specific labels in the cells of all living things. From conception, if we were able to test the DNA of the fertilized cell we would find that it has human DNA. Not only does it have human DNA, but it has DNA that is clearly separate from that of his/her mother. It's sex will already have been determined as well as it's eye color, hair color, etc. Just because it is at a different stage of development does not mean it is any less human. Abortion kills a human being (aka an individual, living human, organism)- When we combine my last 2 points we find that abortion takes the life of a distinct, human organism. This means that abortion and murder are indistinguishable and that abortion is a specific form of murder that takes place prior to birth (or during in the case of partial birth abortion). So the question becomes is this murder somehow justifiable? I would argue that there is no justification and I'll carefully go through the differences between abortion and other forms of murder. The 3 differences between killing an unborn baby and other human beings are: A) Level of Development, B) Environment, and C) Degree of Dependence. A) Level of Development- A newborn baby is usually more developed than an unborn baby. Think of a human life on a timeline and say someone is 20 years old. They are the same person as when they were 10 years old even though their physical structure is different. They will also be the same person when they are 80 (assuming they live until then). Their physical structure and even their cells are different, but they are the same person. When they were in their mother's womb, they were still the same person. As humans our cell(s), physical appearance, build, etc. change over time based on our level of development. However, you are still you. Level of development does not change who the person is or whether or not they are a person. They are still the same person deserving of the same rights. Therefore an individual's level of development does not justify abortion. 2) Environment- A baby out of the womb cannot be killed, but a baby in the womb can be. Why would it's location in the womb diminish the baby's personhood? Say you were born in Oregon, but moved to Virginia. Changing your environment did not change your value. It is not suddenly fine to kill you because you moved. Why is it that way for babies? Environment does not change the baby or its worth. Even if it did however, the mother (or rapist) is the one who made the decision on where the baby was located and so the unborn baby shouldn't be held responsible simply due to his/her location. So, Environment does not differentiate abortion from murder or justify it. 3) Degree of Dependence- The unborn baby is totally dependent on his/her mother and for the most part so are infants, toddlers, and small children. Let's say I have an 12 year old son who is becoming independent. He can cook and take care of himself until he is diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. Now he needs at least 4 shots of insulin a day and has to check his blood sugar at least 8 times a day. He becomes very dependent on me as his parent again. Does that make it okay to murder him? Of course not, that is logically and morally absurd. Degree of dependency is not a valid differentiating factor between abortion and other forms of murder. Conclusion: In my opening argument I have successfully proven that from the moment of conception an embryo is a living human being that consequently deserves human rights. This proves abortion is killing a human being. I then proved that the killing of an unborn baby is no more morally justifiable than murder in other forms. The government as an obligation to take action against immoral acts like murder. Therefore, abortion should be illegal. Vote Pro. 1) . http://www.dictionary.com... 2) . http://www.dictionary.com... 3) . https://en.m.wikipedia.org...