Abortion should be illegal in the United States

"Currently, abortion (providing that certain restrictions are met) is legal in the United States." My argument is that, despite the current legality of abortion, it is still murder because there is no "legal excuse or authority". A legal excuse for murder is self-defense - it is justifiable to kill someone if they are putting your life in danger (likewise, the only legal excuse for abortion is the probable death of the mother as that puts her life in danger). Additionally, abortion has no legal authority. Soldiers have legal authority from their government to kill enemies in order to defend their nation. In both instances (legal excuse and authority) an individual kills to protect themselves or others from harm. Abortion, on the other hand, terminates a human life merely because the mother did not want that human life. The legality of abortion implies that it is okay to kill a human being because you don't want them to be alive. By that logic, one could kill any human being they felt was an "inconvenience" on their existence. Obviously, not wanting a human being to be alive is not an excuse for murder. So just because abortion is legal, doesn't mean it should be, which is what I am arguing. "Generally speaking, in a human pregnancy, the fetus is not considered 'alive' until EEG waves are detectable." This is not factual. Life is life, whether it is within the womb or not. A single cell is "alive", meaning it meets the criteria for life (1). Whether or not a being is alive is not contingent upon whether or not its EEG waves are detectable. Obviously one would not be able to detect EEG waves on a single cell, but that does not mean it is not alive. A human zygote is not only composed of living cells, but *human* cells that reproduce and differentiate into *human* tissues, organs, and so on. Therefore it is both human and alive. " Also, it a myth that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks." I am not at all concerned about whether or not a fetus can feel pain. That does not make him or her any less of a human. Besides, I do not see how this makes killing the fetus excusable. There is a condition known as congenital analgesia in which the sufferer cannot feel pain (2). If someone were to kill them, would it be justifiable since they do not feel pain? Before I go on, I think it is important to mention that all humans are entitled to the same human rights, one of which includes life. The definition of human rights is : "rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status." (3) Notice how the definition of human rights does not exclude unborn humans. Now, to address your special circumstances: "-Cases in which the fetus was conceived through rape or incest" While rape is a horrific crime that should be met with a just punishment, I don't see why an unborn human should pay someone else's price. Aborting the unborn will not erase the rape, nor punish the rapist. A rape does not justify the murder of an uninvolved party. Let's look at this in a different context: You're arguing that it is justifiable for a woman to kill a human being (the unborn) because she was raped. What if a woman killed a human being (the rapist) because he raped her? In the second scenario, the woman would still be classified as a murderer and prosecuted even though the human being she killed personally wronged her because it was not in self defense (the rape had already occurred) and she had no legal authority. So if it is illegal for an individual to murder a human who personally wronged them, why is it justifiable to kill an unborn human considering that s/he is innocent of any crime? If the mother does not wish raise or even see the baby (which is completely understandable), adoption is the answer, not murder. As for incest, while it is troubling to think about what condition could occur as a result of it, it does not justify murder. I know the ensuing argument might be, "They baby could have a disorder or deformity and live a hard life," but that does not make him/her any less human. It is not for anyone else but the unborn individual to decide whether life with a disorder or deformity is worth living or not. "-Cases in which the mother is grossly underage" Most grossly underage pregnancies I am aware of occur as a result of rape, for which I have already stated my argument. The age of the mother does not make the unborn any less human, therefore the abortion would be no less a murder, unless, of course, the young mother was unlikely to survive childbirth. "-Cases in which contraception methods were used but failed" It should be known by those who engage in sexual intercourse that contraceptives are not 100% effective. No condom or contraceptive pill company reports their products as preventing pregnancy 100% of the time. If two individuals choose to ignore this risk, they should not be able to murder the newly created human being because he/she is inconvenient. An unborn human being can not be held responsible for the failure of contraceptives. "-Cases in which there is evidence of a physical or cognitive birth defect in the fetus" This ties in to my argument against abortion in the event of incest. One human being does not get to kill another human being just because they have a defect. My only concession is this: there is no reason to give birth to a stillborn or a baby who will die so shortly after birth that they may as well be a stillborn. Otherwise, what this argument is saying is that it is okay to kill a human being because they have a defect. This would open the door to parents killing their children upon learning they have a disability. If the mother feels she is unable to take on the medical costs of a child with special needs, there are many people all across the U.S. who are willing to take in these children with open arms (as evinced by the establishment of the Adopt America Network which specifically places special needs children in loving homes). Murdering a fetus with a defect need not be an option. "Although I personally would not get an abortion unless I were to be raped and it resulted in a pregnancy before I finish my studies, I don't believe anyone should be forced to go through with a pregnancy if she doesn't want to and there is a good reason." So, in essence, what you are saying is that although you would personally never murder a human being, you don't believe someone's "right" to murder an unwanted human being should be restricted. Well, murder is murder, whether you would personally do it or not. Further, the problem with saying "unless there's a good reason" is that people will stretch what a good reason is. A woman may have engaged in unsafe sex, became pregnant, and had an abortion because she "didn't want it", which was a "good reason" to her. I understand that I come off as extremely unsympathetic to the mother's situation, but it's simply because I acknowledge that the mother's situation is not the only one to be considered. I am acutely aware that it is difficult to carry an unwanted fetus to term, but murder is not excusable just because something is hard. I know that making abortion illegal will not prevent its occurrence - but just because people murder doesn't mean there should't be a law against it. My belief that abortion should be illegal in most cases is not because I don't care about the mother, but because I also care about the newly created human. Murder is murder and the definition should not be tainted by emotional circumstances or flimsy excuses. Human life is human life and its definition should not be forgotten or twisted to justify a morally and (by definition of murder) legally unjustifiable act. SOURCES 1. http://scienceline.ucsb.edu... 2. http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov... 3. http://www.ohchr.org...