Abortion in the embryonic period should be legal

My thanks to Pro for this opening round of arguments.DefinitionsIn the Round 1 definitions, pro noted that "the embryonic period in humans begins at fertilization." Thus Pro has already accepted that the unborn are human organisms and that no further argumentation or definitions are required to establish this fact."A person is an individual substance that has a rational nature." - Boethius [1]ArgumentAs Gregory Koukl stated, "If the unborn are not human, no justification for elective abortion in necessary. But if the unborn are human, no justification for elective abortion is adequate." [2]. This is to say that the pro-life argument is very simple. There is no excuse that can justify the intentional taking of an innocent life. Thus this is not an emotional argument, but one based on rights and facts.We have come to accept the concept of universal human rights and equality in moral value of all humanity. This was most famously presented in the US Declaration of Independence: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. [3]To deny the rights to the unborn is merely a form of unjust discrimination. It is the powerful subjugating those who are not only powerless, but also faceless and voiceless. We deny their rights by saying that only those who are "human AND" deserve rights. Historical examples of which:Human and MaleHuman and not JewishHuman and not BlackWe have been exceptional at denying rights to other humans in order for some group to benefit at cost of some other group. Now we are subjugating another class of humans for the benefit of the powerful. This time it is age based and not a racially motivated group.Thus the permission of abortion denies the very foundation of our justice system - the equality of all humans. Legal abortion is an injustice and is neither legally nor morally just and should thus be prohibited at every stage of life.It is simply illogical to support a notion that the same organism can gain inalienable rights.RebuttalInstead of making one or two well thought out arguments, Pro has chosen to make a shotgun style debate.1 - Violinist ArgumentWhile this argument is stated as the Bodily Rights Argument, Pro never mentions the word "right" once in the entire argument. However, I will make Pro's argument for him in order to counter it.The actual argument is that one's right to one's own body cannot be violated. You cannot be forced to donate blood to save a life, nor can you be forced to donate an organ to save the life of another.The question is, if this is true why would the unborn have the right to overrule the mother's right to bodily integrity? Pro's argument is fundamentally an argument rooted in Natural Law. It is a flawed argument.The reason that the violinist is justified in unhooking himself is that the purpose of the his kidneys is to filter his own blood. The fact that through modern technology we have the amazing ability to re-purpose one's kidneys to do something else is wonderful. However, this re-purposing is not obligatory. The violinist is justified in permitting only the primary purpose of his kidneys to be employed.However, a woman's reproductive system serves no purpose other than the nurturing and protection of the woman's unborn child. The desire for an abortion is not a just appeal to preserve the natural use of her body parts. Rather an abortion is a fundamental violation of the just functioning of her body.As such the Violinist argument fails to be a valid argument against abortion.2 - Pregnant Women vs. Everyone ElseThis is a continuation of the Violinist argument. Pro's argument is that we don't force billionaires to spend their wealth at saving the lives of the populace in general.This is easily refuted, by understanding parental obligations under the law.Failure to Provide the Necessities of LifeDuty of persons to provide necessaries215. (1) Every one is under a legal duty(a) 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;(b) to provide necessaries of life to their spouse or common-law partner; and(c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person(i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and(ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life. [4]The reason why a pregnant woman has a duty to her unborn child, but not a billionaire to the populace is that she is the child's parent and natural guardian. The government recognizes that parents or guardians have a special duty to provide for and protect minors.If we demand that parents and guardians provide for the necessities of life after birth, it is only logical that this responsibility begins when the child begins.3 - 3 Day Human vs. 5 Year OldPro asks why we would save a 5 year old instead of hundreds of embryos in a fire. The fact that in a moment of emergency, instinctual responses versus intellectual realization is of little value in this argument. It is easy for the human mind to relate to that which it resembles. Thus it is easier for the mind to relate to a chimp than to a single cell human. However, this is fundamentally no different than discrimination based on race. They don't look the same so it becomes easy to devalue based on visual differences.However, we recognize the value of humans based on intellectual and scientific reality and not on visual prejudices. Pro argues that merely because they are less developed that an embryo has less moral value. If this true then it is logically necessary to conclude that those with greater development must have greater value and thus greater rights. So an adult would logically have greater rights than a teenager who would have greater rights than a youth, etc... The fallacy in this line of argument is obvious as we have inalienable human rights.4 - AntinatalismIf one truly believed that the suffering in the world outweighed any possible meaning of life, then one would kill themselves. The fact that Pro is here making this argument is proof that he doesn't believe this argument. It would be most just to eliminate those who suffer the most. Instead of abortion he should be seeking the death penalty for the homeless or perhaps carpet bombing refugee camps. Yet we would all recognize this as highly immoral behaviour. That Pro would even entertain this argument shows the weakness of his position to begin with.5 - Right to LifePro notes that the definition of a person is a contentious issue. I would argue that it is contentious and difficult to define because it is being abused by those who wish to deny that the unborn are human.The use of the word person originates from a theological discussion on the nature of God in the Trinity. As such the term person is meant to describe a superset of humanity and not a subset.To refer to somebody as not a person was to mean that they were less than human. Yet since we know that the unborn are human we have redefined what person means in order to enable continued discrimination.Pro fails to describe why the particular definition of person presented by Warren is valid.The fault is that it treats sentience as something that is added like an engine to the frame of a car. Whereas rationality is inherent to human nature. The child's ration nature is not something that is added from without, but rather something that is revealed from within. This explains why Warren's personhood criteria are in error.ConclusionI have provided a logical reason why abortion is wrong and refuted Pro's arguments. I look forward to expanding these argument in the next rounds.Sources[1] Liber de Persona et Duabus Naturis, ch. 3[2] Koukl, Precious Unborn Human Persons, p. 7[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...