The option to abort should be the mother's choice

Definitions: I accept my opponent's given definitions on 'abortion" and "mother" The affirmative side has stated in their thesis that they will be arguing to show that allowing mothers the choice of abortion will have "favorable effects". I also agree with the statement of the UN Declaration of Human Rights and feel it can apply to the world's populations. I also will show that my position adheres to the mentioned UN declaration consistently well. My opponent also goes on to state that this would yield more benefits than harm. I reject the 'more benefits than harm' utilitarian criteria my opponent will be arguing and instead will be advocating that the UN declaration protects the rights of life, liberty, and security of person that all humans are entitled to. Article 3 also goes on to say "Everyone has the right of recognition everywhere as a person before law. " Utilitarianism is an ethical philosophy, and I do think that ethics and morals are the bedrock which underpin this debate. So to be clear this is a debate on what the best moral decision would look like when considering the controversial topic of abortion. Is making abortion illegal the best moral decision or is keeping abortion legal while allowing the mother the choice? However, on that note, I put forth that there is a significant moral factor that my opponent has not weighed in on yet in this debate. The moral considerations of terminating the life of an innocent human child, which necessarily comes with choosing abortion. This can not be ignored or dismissed if we are trying to have an honest discourse on what the moral answer is to this topic. My argument will be structured in the following manner: Premise 1: All humans are entitled to human rights which include the right to life. Premise 2: The unborn is a human life which starts at conception Therefore: The unborn is a human life entitled to the human rights all people enjoy which includes the right to life. 1. All humans are entitled to human rights (including the right to life) Not only does the Declaration of Independence backed by the US Constitution state this for all American human lives but this applies elsewhere too. The "UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights" in Article 3 states that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person. " However, when a conflict between life and liberty occurs ,life will always trump liberty if one's liberty threatens or denies the right to life of another. Without life, there is no liberty. Liberty is only meaningful when the right to life is respected and honored above liberty. Life is always valued over liberty. If you don't possess the right to live, what good does liberty grant to such a valueless (and I imagine very shortened) life? To conclude my first premise, it is important to keep in mind that liberty is not absolute. .. where the right to life is. One's liberty ceases at the point when that liberty endangers the life or health of another. The liberty of being able to drive my car ends at the point where you are standing in front of it. (My liberty was suddenly curtailed by your right to life which would have ended if my liberty wasn't checked accordingly) 2. Human life begins at conception This premise is usually the most contested. Let's first explore what the experts say on the matter. "In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun. " (Kaluger, 1974) "Governments own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health 'fertilization' is the process of union of two gametes where by somatic chromosome number is restored and development of new individual is initiated. " (Erlelt, 2013) "Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal and postnatal periods, it is important to realize that birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change of environment. " (Moore 1993) The reason that conception is the point human life starts is because once the full 23 pairs of necessary chromosome pairs unite, development begins and continues into a person's 20's. Once the blueprints are assembled there exists a complete separate genetic fingerprint belonging to a separate individual. Arbitrarily drawing the beginning of life at any other point after conception is merely bench-marking different developmental milestones (heartbeat, brain activity etc) with no warrant for why that particular line of demarcation is where life begins. When a mass-shooter kills a 58 year old, a 12 year old, and a 1 year old, we don't consider any of these deaths more or less tragic due to age, they are equally tragic due to them being human. So age is irrelevant in determining human value and by extension the right to life they have. The age of a human technically should be measured back to conception, the actual start of its life, not to the birth (birth merely being a dramatic movement), so this still applies to the unborn in the womb who is indeed a human being possessing the right to that life. 3. Therefore , Once conception occurs, human life begins and is entitled to the same human rights (including right to life) The take away is that abortion is indeed murder and considering 320,000 occur every year and 59,627,558 since Roe v Wade (. https://tinyurl.com...) we unfortunately realize the moral gravity of abortion being legal. My opponent has framed my position as "wanting to limit the choices that women can make", which I want to address further in the next round. Summary: The conclusion that was derived from this syllogism can be logically deduced down to a simple moral truth. All humans have the right to live. To violate that is murder, just like it would be if it was perpetrated against any other person. Murder has very heavy legal and moral considerations. .. being that it is considered one of the worst human rights violations (next to rape) and violent acts that can be inflicted upon a person. It earned this reputation because it always results in the permanency of death. A person doesn't have the liberty to deprive another of the right to their own life. All liberties and personal autonomy that a person has. .. reach their limit when they threaten another's life. This point will be critical to remember moving forward in the second round of constructive arguments in the debate. Cross-ex questions: What assumptions do you have regarding the unborn having human rights? If you reject this idea, on what warrant? Do you believe in the situational ethics that utilitarianism espouses or do you assume moral realism? Can rights be taken away or overridden in certain circumstances? Which is more absolute, the right to life or right to liberty?