Abortion is a mother's right.

I will initially challenge your assumptive syllogism. Firstly, an 'unborn entity' is not a member of the human community. Even in the third trimester, when a fetus is recognizable by genus, even sometimes species, it is not yet 'part of the community.' Such a concept is not an objective characteristic. It is like 'tall,' a mere facet of logic completely dependent upon relativity. It is typically considered, however, that the process of birth is what brings a person into the human community, not conception. By that argument, every eukaryotic embryo could be a member of the 'human community,' since it is a while before such a nascent lifeform is even recognizable as mammalian, let alone human. Secondly, I will not dispute the moral issues of killing a member of the 'human community.' Thirdly, you have not yet established how a nascent lifeform that is not even distinguishable as human, let alone a member of the 'human community.' Fourthly, you must establish your original logic, before you can make claims using unsupported assumptions as supporting evidence and foundation.Regarding My Opponent's "Photo Album"Well, it is certainly interesting that you like your photo album. Let's try, however, to get through this without issuing any absurdities, 'collegiate.'You are not actually entirely correct, about being the same person you were as a fetus, infant, child, adolescent, or adult. The very nature of life is that it is constantly changing. You are made of totally different matter from what you were earlier. Your cells are constantly breaking down and being rebuilt with new matter, so that you are never made of exactly the same matter. The only identity that you retain is neural patterns, which fundamentally change throughout life. That fetus became you. It was not you. Any single different factor could totally change who that fetus became.If you were to kill a member of the 'human community,' it would indeed be considered murder. However, neither a fetus nor an embryo have yet been established as members of such. They are nascent life. They are definitionally not yet alive. They have the potential to come alive. But like a bird egg or a tree seed, they are not yet alive. The potential to become something does not make an object that something. Just because a fetus has the potential to become a living being does not mean it is one. Separated from its mother, it would instantly lose that potential, making it even less alive than a seed or egg.Regarding My Opponent's "SLED"A. No, size cannot determine rights. But a fetus is not merely a miniature human, any more than a seed is a miniature tree.B. The fact is that it is not known to be cognitively active at all. The brain of a fetus or embryo does not begin working until around the third trimester, which is why it is considered unethical to perform an abortion after the second trimester.C. The fetus is not just a little person, it is not, in fact, even alive. Being born does not change that state. After the second trimester, a fetus gains more independence, and can possibly survive removal from the uterus, another reason that abortions are considered unethical after the second trimester.D. It is an entirely different sort of dependence. Someone who is already alive, but whose life is in peril, is drastically different from a nascent lifeform. In the case of a mammal, a nascent lifeform is totally dependent (with perhaps the exception of monotremes and marsupials) on its parent. It is not alive at all, it is only feeding off of the parent, so that it might eventually become an individual organism.The traits you have listed are largely unfounded, and lack scientific support. Additionally, you have yet to establish that a fetus or embryo qualifies as a member of the 'community.' An embryo cannot even be distinguished as unique to a Phylum, and a fetus is, while more developed than an embryo, cannot be recognized as belonging to a specific genus, let alone species. Saying that either is a member of the 'human community' is like saying that caviar is a large fish.Regarding 'Natural Abortions'I acknowledge that an embryo or fetus might accidentally perish as a result of miscarriage, or some other accident. However, would it not be evident that if a fetus or embryo is unable to survive on its own after a miscarriage, it is not an independent lifeform? After all, life is defined as "the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally." Neither a fetus nor an embryo metabolizes, reproduces, nor adapts, whether by internal or external changes. It matches no characteristics of life.You make an interesting case, but I do not see that any of your claims are backed by biology. They are all references to subjective moral musings by minor religious philosophers.Sources:Dictionary.reference.comEn.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbortionEn.wikipedia.org/wiki/FetusEn.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmbryoLife: The Science of Biology, Fifth Edition