Should abortion be legal

I will set up the format for my Con constructive case, and then I will present my rebuttals to the Pro. Good luck! :) My case will use a single syllogism to prove that abortion should be federally illegal. The killing of an innocent human should be illegal. Abortion is the killing of an innocent human. Therefore, abortion should be illegal. Now, I don't expect anyone to have a problem with the first premise, but where I expect to see some debate is over the second premise, that abortion is the killing of an innocent human, so that will be what I defend in my first case. This premise assumes three things about abortion: First, that it is a killing, second, that the victim is innocent, and third, that the victim is human. So I will tackle these three claims: 1. Abortion is a killing. By definition, to kill is to end the life of ____ (M-W). This means that in order for abortion to be a killing, a fetus must be alive, and this is where the biggest pro-choice argument lies. Most pro-choice arguments rest on the idea that life begins after birth, and not conception. So in order to decide whether a fetus really does qualify as "living," here's a definition for life: "The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism." (The Free Dictionary) In short, life is the quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms (a pretty reasonable definition). I think we can agree that a fetus has this quality - it is definitely distinguishable from a dead organism. Otherwise, what qualifies a stillborn child as dead, if (s)he was never alive in the first place? Now, I know that some people say that a fetus isn't alive because it cannot survive outside the womb, and yet, no one bothers to argue that parasites aren't alive. I'm not saying that a fetus has the worth of a parasite, I am only saying that they are equally alive. No one actually defines life to be the ability to survive independently of another organism, outside of the issue of abortion; we still refer to our organs and parasitic creatures as "alive." But as soon as abortion comes up, we come up with all these excuses for denying a fetus' life. 2. The victim of an abortion is innocent. Now, I don't expect to have any debate over this point either, but just in case, I have a definition for that too: Innocent: Not guilty of a crime or other wrong act (M-W) 3. The victim of an abortion is human. By definition (The American Heritage Dictionary of Student Science), a human is a member of the species Homo sapiens; a human being. Now, have you ever heard of a single creature (not a species that is evolving over successive generations) changing from one species to another? No. No one claims that that can happen. So in order to ever become a human, a fetus must already be a human, because no creature can actually change its species. Now, onto Pro's case: 1. Women's rights. No one gets to argue that the killing of an innocent human is within their rights. That's not an excuse. Can I claim that I need the right to shoot someone in the head in order to support "women's rights?" No. We all have boundaries. 2. A fetus is not a fully functional human being until 24 weeks. It is functional, it is just dependent on its mother for most of its functions. This does not mean it is not alive, as I have addressed under my first point. In conclusion, because a fetus is an innocent, living human, its life must be legally protected.