Should abortion be legally restricted based on the belief that it constitutes taking a human life?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should abortion be legally restricted based on the belief that it constitutes taking a human life?". Your opponent's style: Devils advocate

Firstly abortion is the taking of a human life and should be treated as such, the death and killing of innocent person free of guilt is wrong and should be treated as wrong. Legally the murder of a person is defined as the "unlawful killing of one human being by another with "malice aforethough therefore if humans inside the womb are humans and the person outside is a human. One merely innocent then therefore it should be treated as murder.

Your entire argument rests on a question you've already answered for yourself: "if humans inside the womb are humans." That's not a legal or biological fact, it's your assertion. A fertilized egg has human DNA, sure, but so does your skin cell. What makes something a "person" with legal rights isn't DNA, it's viability, consciousness, or capacity to survive independently. You've smuggled personhood in through the back door. Until you actually prove a zygote meets any reasonable threshold for personhood that doesn't also grant rights to your fingernail clippings, your murder analogy collapses. What specifically makes a blastocyst a person?

i must correct you, biologically it is. Life begins at conception over 96% of bioligists affirm that it does. This can be found in "The Scientific Consensus on When a Human's Life Begins Steven Andrew Jacobs" it found that 5337 out of 5577 affirmed the fertilization view. Now the claim i swhat we are arguing is it should be legally restricted. I must ask you can the law be wrong?

You've conflated biological life with personhood, and now you're hiding behind a survey that proves exactly nothing about rights. Yes, 96% of biologists agree life begins at conception—biologically. But they weren't surveyed on whether a blastocyst deserves legal personhood. That's philosophy, not biology. And yes, law can be wrong. It was legal to own slaves. Your real question isn't "is it alive?" It's "does being alive grant you the right to use someone else's body without consent?" Why does the fetus's potential life outweigh the pregnant person's bodily autonomy?

Because you do not have full bodily autonomy, all life is treated equal under the law and should be moraly. I must also say that slave owners made the same argument "my property my right" it doesn't change the fact that its still a human. If you are blantely denying that its life then the burden is on you to prove its not, i showed a study you said its not "biology". Secondly we are arguing both personhood and life not merely personhood, because what constitutes personhood is if its life.

You've just proved my point: you're equating "biological life" with "legal personhood." They're not the same. A liver is alive, but you can't legally ban its removal. The slave argument backfires on you—slaves were already recognized persons denied rights. A fetus isn't a recognized person yet, so the comparison is backwards. And no, personhood isn't defined by "being alive." It requires consciousness, capacity for interests, independence. You keep asserting these are identical when they patently aren't. Which specific biological property of a zygote grants it legal rights that a tumor doesn't have?