Abortion for socio-economic reasons

The format will be Round 1: Initial arguments, Round 2: rebuttal and defense, Rounds 3 & 4 more of the same, and Round 5 closing arguments. We"ll be arguing about abortions that are carried out for socio-economic reasons. This is sensible since around 98.3% of all abortions are undergone for purely socio-economic reasons, naught to do with health, rape, incest, etc. (this from official data taken from surveys done by state agencies and the Alan Guttmacher Institute) So, I will base my argument on this simple statement: that if we can agree that the foetus is human, we will have shown that abortion for socio-economic reasons is wrong. I don"t think that Unstobbaple would disagree with this (or its converse), and I will not bother with mental harm to the mother, which though somewhat relevant, pales before the harm done if the aborted foetus is human. To be clear, if we show that they are humans, we"ve shown that abortions are objectively wrong for anyone to carry out so long as you agree that humans shouldn"t be killed for socio-economic reasons. These are my central arguments for why abortion is wrong: 1. The physical differences between a foetus and an adult human are not enough to justify the stripping of the foetus of that most fundamental right to live. The famed S.L.E.D. works well for demonstrating this: 1, the size: should a dwarf be stripped of his rights because of his size? Can it be allowed for a prematurely born baby the size of a hand to be killed in the manner of an abortion? Clearly not. 2, the level of development: when you say that the foetus doesn"t possess the mental faculties of a human, whether the prefrontal cortex or self-awareness, I would point out that by that standard infants less than 3-months old can also be summarily executed, since only at three months does the number of synapse connections jump enough (from around 50 trillion to a quadrillion) to allow (limited) self-awareness. 3, environment. A common argument heard is that "it is my body, and that is that!". Besides the fact that it is a rather childish argument, to compound it all it is nonsensical. Let us imagine a slightly distasteful scenario: a couple are engaged in consensual kissing. Suddenly, the woman bites off the tongue of the man (rearrange or change nouns as you wish). Should that be legal? Is it right? Should it ever be allowed? With respect to the foetus, the "biter" is the mother; don"t even try to twist this into the baby invading the woman"s body, making the baby some type of home invader: not only did the woman know pretty well what was going to happen before conception (remember: socio-economic), but we can compare the loss: the loss of life for the unborn, to the invasion of the mother"s personal life by a being innocent of all wrong. 4, degree of dependency: if viability bestows human value, then all those who depend on insulin or kidney medication are not valuable and we may kill them, not to mention that the venerable Dr. Hawking would rather quickly kick the bucket. Whew! So on to the second central argument: this is one is much more ripe for debate. But remember! Only one of these two central arguments need be conceded by my opponent for us to be satisfied that abortion should not be carried out (assume from now on that I refer to socio-economic abortions only), i.e. for me to have won this debate (which would hopefully be carried out by you, the voter). 2. Chop up the whole of the period between conception and birth into seconds (how did you know that I love calculus?). Now, is there a difference in the right to live between that of a newborn and a baby one second away from birth? None of you would say there exists any. Now, go back, second by second... by second... by tedious second... until conception. Now, at what point is that foetus no longer a human but just a bunch of useless cells? Remember, if you choose a point in this dare, you are saying that just one second makes or breaks the foetus" right to live. Unstobbaple gave in a comment the argument that since we set ages at which certain actions can be done for teenagers, we should set an age at which the foetus can no longer be killed at the whim of the mother. But this is very flawed, because you are comparing the killing of a human being with the decision of a self-aware human who"s not even undertaking an action with certain death as a result. (I will expound on this more in the next round, if my opponent uses the argument.) These are the reasons why abortion is wrong, and should hence be made illegal. By the end of the five rounds of debate, I sincerely hope that all who followed it are either strengthened in their conviction that abortion is wrong, or if they believe otherwise, are changed in mind. I can only hope that nobody"s support for abortions borders on belief, in the face of which no logic can hope to disassuade. Gimel