Abortion is Wrong

I want to begin by saying that I will give up my arguments and admit that I already lose. I will be the number one advocate of abortion rights for women IF you can prove to me these 2 premises are wrong: 1) The unborn are human 2) The unborn are alive. If these 2 conditions are correct about the unborn, then they should constitutionally have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If they aren't correct, then, like I stated, women should have every right to do whatever she wants with whatever is inside her body. Science, however, provides extremely solid ground to believe that both premises are true. The DNA of the fetus show 2 things: 1) The unborn are 100% human. They have every chromosome needed to be classified as a homosapien sapien and they have everything needed to be a fully developed human. Bioethic textbooks nationwide confirm that life begins from conception and that the zygote is a complete, distinct human being. 2) The fetus is not the mother. Put in those terms, it seems very simple and straightforward. There are always those that say though, "A woman should be able to do what she wants with her body." Once you know the scientific facts, you realize that statement is false. The fetus, from the moment of conception is also alive according to the definition of life: the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. Notice that the zygote has the capacity to do all of this and is actively doing 3 of the 4 from the moment of conception. (All except reproducing, though I imagine you can make an argument it's doing that as well.) So being that both those statements are true, the fetus is a whole human being, not fully developed, but it is alive. Development is a key aspect to look at when pondering the value of the being inside the mother. If we can kill it because of it doesn't have cognitive brain fuction, then you say we can kill it because it doesn't have an arbitrary ability that hasn't developed yet. I therefore, can promote the same ideology that because a 2 year old girl doesn't yet have the ability to reproduce, then she is less valuable than the 17 year old girl and she has less value than the older, more developed girl. This then means we can kill any girl until puberty. We don't say this because we don't believe that human beings have more or less value based on their level of development. The same should hold true for the human being inside the mother. If abortion kills a human being, why should I draw the line at the endangerment of the mother's life? Aren't I being a hypocrite, placing higher value on the more developed being instead of treating them as equals? No, and here's why. When paramedics are trying to save a family in a car that has just gone underwater, they don't go and save the women and children first- they look for the strongest looking men. Why? Is it because they were told that men are more important to save than women or children? No, they are told to save the strongest men because they know that they have a higher probability of survival, and that's what they want to do, save as many lives as possible. That is accomplished by attempting to save the stronger beings life first. So, now take that philosophy to bioethics. The mother is much stronger and has a much higher probability of surviving, therefore, if the mother's life is endangered, we should act in order to save her life first. Not just go and have abortion, but rather do everything possible to save both, but when there is no other alternative, save the mother's life instead of the child's. Make sense? It's only due to the probability of survival, not the value of the 2 individuals. https://www.google.com...