Abortion Should be illegal

Question #1: Pigs are extremely cognitively complex with a wide range of emotions and a high level of intelligence. Newborns, However, Have very little intelligence and operate off a basic set of primitive reactions. Why do we give the newborns more rights than adult pigs? My View: The newborn should have rights and the pig should not. An organism must exhibit or have the potential to exhibit symbolic abstract thinking or higher consciousness (essentially attributes which make homo sapiens unique) in order to have value or "human" rights. Those organisms who have only the potential would include (at least) the human unborn/newborns. These organisms should be given a right to not be intentionally killed and a right to natural and ordinary care. Question #2: Analogy: A woman has consensual sex. She becomes pregnant but is not aware of the fact until birth. She gives birth in a cabin during a terrible storm. She has plenty of food but no formula. Does she have any legal obligation to breastfeed the newborn to keep it alive. What if she was raped instead? Would that change your answer? My view: In both cases the woman has a legal obligation to breastfeed her newborn. She has a natural and ordinary obligation to care for the child until it is viable in another"s care. By natural care, The distinction I am making is that her breastmilk is biologically intended for her offspring, So the care is natural. This analogy parallels well to pregnancy in all but the degree of care (both involve bodily autonomy violations but in differing degrees). However, I hold the view that parents should not be forced to donate blood despite the relatively low degree of violation in bodily autonomy. I hold this view consistently because the care would be artificial (the parent"s blood is biologically not intended for the child). Therefore, The principle of natural and ordinary care seems to be the only consistent principle in application. Conclusion: The Unborn should have the same rights as newborns, This includes the right to natural and ordinary care by the mother until another can provide such care. Other conclusions: Unborn and newborns who no longer have the potential to exhibit uniquely human characteristics have no rights. Women who are forced surrogates have no obligation to continue pregnancy/breastfeeding (Voluntary surrogates and wet nurses have accepted the role of the mother meaning they have consented that their womb/breast-milk are now meant for the child). Question #3 (Just for fun): A man has protected consensual sex (it"s that 1/100 time when the condom fails). The woman tells him she is pregnant and is going to keep the baby. He wants nothing to do with the baby and is willing to give up any custody rights. He wants the women to abort or adopt but she will not! Currently the law says he must still pay child support to that women despite the fact that the only thing he consented to was sex. Do you agree with the law? If so, Would you not say that the government views consent to sex as also consent to be responsible for the needy human who might be produced from said sex? My view: This question does not lie at the core of my argument but is a simple example of how the government currently views consent to sex as something more than just consent to a pleasurable sexual experience. My goal in this debate is to prove that the unborn have rights and that one of those rights includes access to a mother"s body for natural and ordinary care. Therefore, The conclusion is that abortion should be illegal. Reducing the abortion rate, While a positive thing, Is not my main goal. Giving the unborn the rights they deserve is my ultimate goal and the purpose of this debate.