Late term abortion is morally correct in every situation

My opponent states it's my burden to prove abortion is morally correct in every situation - which, admittingly, is horrendously sly wording. However, I trusted my opponent to have the dignity to not make this debate a sham and it seems he has done as such. Good! Now we can a good argument going. Finally, while I agree that I have a burden, it shouldn't be a controversy that my opponent ALSO has a burden - to prove a situation in which the act of abortion is wrong. ==================== The right of a fetus - killing a pregnant woman ==================== {quote}If you kill a pregnant woman, you are charged with two murders. {endquote} Really? Well even if that is so, this is no argument. Killing a pregnant woman should be ONE MURDER. However, do realize that part of the punishment may be that the parents did not originally want the fetus to die (abortion against their consent), so I suppose some part of the law may account for that (though it will be tricky). My opponent's argument he relies simply on the fact that since a law exists in favor for anti-abortion (a way that it can be interpreted at least), then this serves as an argument. NO, that is an erroneous argument - a fallacy almost. There is a federal law/bill against gay marriage[1] - does that constitute as an argument against gay marriage? No. Just because something is legal or illegal does not make it right or wrong. ==================== The right of a fetus - stopping a heart beat ==================== My opponent now attempts to define a fetus - in late term pregnancies - as a human being. If he does succesfully, then he does indeed show abortion to be murder, and thus to be wrong. However, I will attack his premise that a late term fetus (for the sake of clarity, will just be known as a fetus) is a human being. I argue that unless the fetus is a person, which is an entity that is rational and possess the adequate mental faculties to introspect, then abortion is okay. Human beings are persons, but persons are not always human beings. A person can come in the form of an alien or even in the form of a computer. Because a fetus does NOT have the appropriate brain developments to be a person, it's forced death can't be considered murder. {quote}When the heart starts beating, life begins. .. {endquote} So plants are alive? Because they sure as hell don't have hearts. {quote}Abortion stops a beating heart, plain and simple. If you abort a baby in the late stages of pregnancy, you are killing it. It had a beating heart, functioning brain, skeletal, respiratory, digestive, and other bodily systems. Aborting it stops all of these. {endquote} Assuming that your abritrary definition of life is "when the heart starts beating" is even true, this is a fallacious claim. Just because something is ALIVE does not mean it's forced death is murder. Would killing a dog be called murder? Sure, it's contentious of whether or not it's moral, but would it be murder? Would killing a dog put me in jail for 25 years? I hardly think so. As I have argued before, the requirement for murder is that the entity is a PERSON - an rational entity. ==================== Conclusion ==================== There isn't much left to say. I have countered my opponent's main argument with my own, and I await his response. ---References--- 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...