Abortion is unethical because of the right to life

The argument

A fetus is a human being; it, therefore, has all of the rights of a human being, including the right to life. Since a fetus has a right to life, it is wrong to abort it. An embryo and fetus have all of the DNA of any human, making it inarguably a human life. Human life is valuable, and humans have a right to life. Aborting a fetus disrespects the human right to life, and is therefore wrong.

Premises

Counter-arguments

While a fetus or an embryo is biologically human, that is not a reason to give it the full rights of an adult human. An embryo is no more developed than many animals we kill to eat. Therefore, while a fetus may be human, it is not a person. Personhood requires a certain amount of development, and with that status comes rights. Since a fetus lacks the status of personhood, it does not have a right to life.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Carrying human DNA makes tissue human in the biological sense, a condition every cell in a body also meets, so the premise does not by itself pick out an individual with moral standing. "Inarguably" also states as settled the very question the debate concerns. [Rejecting P2] The premise slides between "human life is valuable" and "every human organism holds the full right to life", which is where the disagreement actually lies: the counter locates rights in personhood, and other positions in this question locate them in sentience or viability. It also omits the second half of the problem even for those who accept it — a right to life does not settle what may be required of another person's body to sustain it, which is what the sibling position turns on.