Abortion should be illegal

Thanks Con. As there was no format specified, I will move immediately into rebuttals and then present my case. == Rebuttals == To complete their "autonomy" argument, Con forces numerous flawed assumptions upon us. Assumption 1: "the objective of government is to ensure the stability of civilization, to act in the interests of the people in general." Is this really true? "General interest" could mean anything, and Con has given us no reason to accept their narrow definition. Assumption 2: "Harm is, by definition, a violation of a being's interests." Says who? The M-W dictionary defines harm merely as "to damage or injure physically or mentally" [1]. According to this definition an abortion absolutely does inflict harm. Con's definition cannot be true - fish are not sentient, is it therefore impossible to harm fish? A bald eagle egg has no sentient desires, is it impossible to harm the egg? Assumption 3: "The fetus is not sentient until 24 weeks" (basically, a fetus is not a person...). This claim is cited to a 2010 article saying fetuses cannot feel pain until at least 24 weeks. So, the inference Con is drawing is if you can't feel pain, you are not sentient, and therefore you cannot be harmed. This is multiply flawed. If I have Congenital Insensitivity to Pain (CIP), a rare genetic disorder that makes me unable to feel pain, have I lost my personhood? Am I immune from harm? The ability to feel pain cannot possibly be a full definition of human life. Assumption 4: "Each individual is best qualified to decide their interests." Really? We can all imagine examples where an individual is NOT best qualified to decide their own interests. It is a myth that we have a right to bodily autonomy. The government restricts our bodies all the time. You cannot walk in public naked. You cannot perform surgery on yourself. Soldiers cannot refuse orders to put their bodies in harm's way. Back Alley Abortions: This argument basically boils down to "people are going to do it anyway, so we might as well make it legal so we can regulate it." But that logic can be applied to EVERY human behavior imaginable! Imagine if rape were legalized as long as the victim was rendered unconscious by government approved drugs beforehand and taken to a specially designated sterile facility. Rape would undoubtedly be "safer" - but it would still be wrong and should therefore remain illegal. Making a behavior "safer" by legally regulating it does not necessarily make it right or good. Bottom line - Con can only justify legalizing abortion if they can show an embryo is not a person. I agree with the John Stuart Mill quote: "The only purpose . . . is to prevent harm to others." I believe an embryo indeed qualifies as an "other" and it is therefore just to restrict an individual choice to harm it. The only assumption I need to make for my case is that it is wrong to destroy human life (excluding self-defense, etc..). Assuming that Con agrees with the virtually universal maxim, I need only show that a fetus/embryo is, indeed, human. I will attempt to demonstrate that abortion is a violation of this maxim, and is therefore immoral. As such, it should be made illegal. == Case == Scientifically, legally, and logically, an embryo should be considered human life. 1. Science overwhelmingly confirms that the unborn, even at the earliest stage, are human. At the first second of conception, the zygote has unique and completely human DNA. Humans have 46 chromosomes with DNA specific to the Homo Sapiens species. All 46 chromosomes, as well as the human specific DNA that comes with them, are present the moment fertilization occurs. According to the book Human Embryology & Teratology, "fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. [2]". Even if an abortion happens just after pregnancy is usually detected, the embryo has already begun developing its own unique brain, spinal cord, fingerprints, and heart. By week 6, the arms, legs, eyes, and bones develop. The heart also begins beating [3]. The brain and spine of a fetus are not the organs of some separate sub-human species. They are genetically and fully Homo Sapien. There is not a single scientific argument to justify why a fetus is not a member of the human species. 2. Federal Law - even Federal Law confirms that the unborn are both alive and human. The 2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA), Section 1841, says that any action that injures a child in utero can be punished as if the injury was inflicted on the mother herself, even if the offender acted accidentally or had no knowledge she was pregnant. Furthermore, UVVA says, "As used in this section, the term "child in utero" or "child, who is in utero" means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." Incredibly, this means that if a pregnant woman on her way to the abortion clinic gets hit by a texting driver, survives, but loses the baby, then that driver can be charged with manslaughter. Yet, if the woman arrives safely at the abortion clinic, she can "lose" her baby in a perfectly legal and often celebrated procedure. This contradiction borders on the insane and cannot be justified with logic. Federal law grants an unborn child at ANY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT with rights equal to those of the mother. Therefore, if the mother has a right to avoid harm, then so does the fetus. 3. Logical Beginning of Life - Contrary to Con's "24 month rule," there is no clear or consistent definition of life's beginning. There are very few people who draw the line at birth, so then where then DOES the line get drawn? 3 hours? 3 days? 3 weeks? 3 months? There is no clear answer to be found. If there is no obvious or consistent definition of life, then there is no obvious or consistent time to say abortion is ok. Viability is often used by pro-choice advocates, but this is a largely meaningless term because it is completely contingent on available levels of technology. Babies have survived premature birth as early as 21 weeks [4], long before Con's 24 week time limit. As technology continues to improve, the survival point will likely continue to get earlier and earlier. Con has no logical reason to draw the line at 24 weeks. Since a fetus is human life, and since it is universally held (in general) that human life should be protected and preserved, then any benefits proposed by Con do not justify this maxim's violation. Con either must show that a fetus is not human life or explain why it does not deserve equal protection under the law. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] O'Rahilly, Ronan and Muller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 8-29 [3] https://www.nlm.nih.gov...... [4] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...