Abortion should remain legal

Haha, I do it for the rewards man. Those $5 Papa John's gift cards get me every time... But on to the debate! Firstly I'd like to thank my opponent for agreeing to debate on this topic. I have debated him in the past and have no doubt he will prove a worthy adversary. Now for my opening arguments. Opener: Abortion is a very controversial topic in our society today and has been heavily debated for decades. However, I believe the debate can be simplified to this: If what is being aborted is simply tissue, than abortion really isn't a big deal. It's nothing more than, let's say, a tonsillectomy. However, if what is being aborted is a human being, with the same basic human rights that you and I have, than abortion cannot be tolerated, as we do not tolerate the legal killing of innocents. Here are my arguments. It is generally wrong to kill innocent human beings. The unborn are innocent human beings. Abortion directly kills the unborn. It is therefore wrong to abort the unborn. Let's take a look at each premise. It is generally wrong to kill innocent human beings: This is fairly obvious. I believe pro and I can both agree to this and concede premise 1. Just as it is illegal to kill a 2 year old because they are unwanted, it should be likewise illegal to kill the unborn child for that same reason, if they are human beings. This leads us to premise 2. The unborn are innocent human beings: We often we use the terms “fetus” or “embryo” to describe the unborn. These very words can only be defined as the stages of life of a living organism. And indeed, the unborn must be living, since they are developing. Embryologist Keith Moore states, “human development begins at conception...”. But what does this imply? Well, what develops? Does a stone develop? Plastic? Non-living materials like this do not develop. At least not in the same way as a living organism, or as Keith states, a human does. To clarify, a fetus is a complete organism, and therefore differs from any tumor, sperm, ova, or skin cell. The fetus is entirely capable of becoming a full-sized adult, unless it is otherwise stopped by an outside force. This leaves us with the question as to whether this living organism is considered human. I'd argue, and I imagine pro would agree, the nature of the offspring is dependent on the nature of the parents. For instance, if two dogs were to mate, they would create a dog. If two cats, we would have a cat. In the same way it logically follows that if two humans mate, they will create human offspring. This is further supported by medical research confirming that the fetus contains human DNA. This all being said, there are people who agree that the fetus is living and has human DNA, but is not a person in the same way you and I are. I then ask, what is a person? Some would say that since the unborn are not persons because they cannot feel pain. However the problem with this is that there are many born, disabled people who cannot feel pain. And yet we still consider them persons. Another problem with using the ability to feel pain as a way to distinguish whether someone is a person, is that it would include animals. And animals are certainly not people in that you and I are. So the pain criteria cannot be used to distinguish personhood. Others would say it is a matter of viability. The unborn cannot survive outside of the womb, and therefore are not persons. But again, this is a bad criteria for personhood. This would again include animals, who are not persons. Furthermore, how does the place I am able to live determine whether or not I am a person? For instance, if I didn't want to take care of my two month old, would it be right of me to throw him outside into the woods where he will surely die due to his helpless nature? It wouldn't be right. Likewise it is not right for us to take an unborn child outside of the place where he/she can live and put them in a place where they cannot. In summary, I contend that personhood does not come from what we can do, but rather what we are. It comes from our human nature. Abortion directly kills the unborn: This, like premise 1, is fairly obvious. However whether or not it kills the unborn, rather than simply removes them, is dependent on premise 2. It is therefore wrong to abort the unborn: If the above premises are true, than it is indeed wrong to abort the unborn. I believe both pro and I can agree killing innocents is wrong. And if society says it's illegal to kill innocent human beings, than if the unborn are human beings, society ought to make it illegal as well. This argument was slightly rushed, so I apologize for a lack of depth in some areas. Over to you pro for your opening arguments! References: Definition of embryo: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... Definition of fetus: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... Keith Moore, the fetus is a complete organism: http://www.npr.org... Fetus and human DNA: https://www.technologyreview.com...