I can't decide whether to be for or against abortion - Convince me to be pro-life!

Thanks to Pro for starting this debate. There's no specified format, so I'm not going to get into burden of proof or definitions. Let's just see who can make the more convincing case. I assume that Pro, like the majority of humanity, believes that it is wrong (in most cases) to intentionally and prematurely end a human life. Pro-life is the most logically consistent position for someone who holds such a belief. If my opponent does not believe such an act is wrong, please say so and I'll forfeit because continuing further arguments would be pointless. There are many complex questions surrounding abortion - what about incest? What about a woman's right to choose? Isn't it the woman's body? While these are all important questions, they are secondary. The first, unavoidable, and central question is this - is a fetus human life? This is the root of the issue. We cannot progress to the other questions until we answer this one. If it is human life, and if Pro agrees that ending human life is wrong, then embracing Pro-life is the only rational conclusion. There is not a single piece of logical or scientific evidence to suggest that an unborn child, at any stage of development, is anything other than a human life, so we must therefore accept that abortion is wrong. Here are some initial arguments for Pro's consideration: 1. Science overwhelmingly confirms that the unborn, even at the earliest stage, are human. At the first second of conception, the zygote has unique and completely human DNA. Humans have 46 chromosomes with DNA specific to the Homo Sapiens species. All 46 chromosomes, as well as the human specific DNA that comes with them, are present the moment fertilization occurs. According to the book Human Embryology & Teratology, "fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. [1]". Even if an abortion happens just after pregnancy can first be detected (4-5 weeks), the embryo has already begun developing its own unique brain, spinal cord, fingerprints, and heart. By week 6, the arms, legs, eyes, and bones develop. The heart also begins beating [2]. The brain and spine of a fetus are not the organs of some separate sub-human species. They are genetically and fully Homo Sapien. There is not a single scientific argument to justify why a fetus is not a member of the human species. 2. Constitutional Law - even Constitutional Law confirms that the unborn are both alive and human. The 2008 Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA), Section 1841, says that any action that injures a child in utero can be punished as if the injury was inflicted on the mother herself, even if the offender acted unintentionally or had no knowledge she was pregnant. Furthermore, UVVA says, "As used in this section, the term "child in utero" or "child, who is in utero" means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." Incredibly, this means that if a pregnant woman on her way to the abortion clinic gets hit by a texting driver, survives, but loses the baby, then that driver can be charged with manslaughter. Yet, if the woman arrives safely at the abortion clinic, she can "lose" her baby in a perfectly legal and often celebrated procedure. This contradiction borders on the insane and cannot be justified with logic. 3. The problem of viability - Pro-choice advocates often claim that a fetus should only be considered human after it is "viable." Viable meaning it can survive outside the womb. The problem, of course, is that there is no clear or consistent definition of viability. There are very few people who draw the line at birth - even the most ardent abortion supporters would not advocate aborting a fetus 3 minutes before birth. But where then DOES the line get drawn? 3 hours? 3 days? 3 weeks? 3 months? This is a very difficult question to answer since there is no clear answer to be found. If there is no obvious or consistent definition of viability, then there is no obvious or consistent time to say abortion is ok. The other problem with arguing for viability is that viability is almost purely a function of current technology. Over the decades, the point at which babies have survived outside the womb keeps getting earlier. In ancient times, even slightly premature babies frequently died. Today however, babies can survive after only 22 weeks in the womb [3]. It is not unreasonable to assume that with further technological advancement, this threshold will continue to shrink. So what does that mean if viability defines humanity? Is our level of humanity purely dependent on the level of technology we have access to? Was a non-viable 35 week ancient baby less human than a viable 22 week modern one? Viability is too inconsistent and fluid to have much meaning, which makes it a scary standard to use when justifying abortion. That's all I'll say for now. Looking forward to Pro's response. [1] O'Rahilly, Ronan and Muller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 8-29 [2] https://www.nlm.nih.gov... [3] http://www.newsweek.com...