Abortion needs to be legalized in all states

Pro disputes that the zygote is alive on the basis that it doesn't have arms and legs. That's plainly absurd. The man in this video is obviously very much alive even though he doesn't have any arms and legs. I explained in the last round that a zygote is alive because it has all the basic requirements for life--growth, metabolism, reproduction, and reaction to stimuli. Pro responded by giving examples of things that grow but are not alive. Play dough and pancakes do not serve as counter-examples, though, because they don't have metabolism and reproduction. The zygote has all of these things. If Pro wanted to refute my argument, she needed to give an example of something that has growth, reproduction, metabolism, and reaction to stimuli but was nevertheless not alive. Since she gave no such counter-example, she failed to refute my argument that the zygote is alive.Pro goes on to make more irrelevant claims. Let's keep our eyes on the ball. The resolution for this debate is that abortion ought to be legalized in all states. It's irrelevant whether religious people treat women unfairly or whether men get shamed or not.Pro brings up some new arguments in this last round (a slight breech of debate ettiquette), so let's address those.She says that abortion is sometimes in a woman's best interest. That may be so, but that's not a good reason to make it legal. The death of an old parent is sometimes in the best interest of the children because then the children get their inheritance, and they don't have the burden of taking care of the old person anymore. But that doesn't mean it should be legal to euthanize our parents. So just because abortion might be in a woman's best interest, that doesn't mean it should be legal in every state.Pro argues that abortion ought to be legal because adoption isn't always an option, and the man might walk out on her. To support her claim that adoption is not always an option, she points out the number of kids in foster homes.This argument fails for a couple of reasons. First, because it's irrelevant. The fact that somebody might end up in a foster home does not mean it should be legal to take their life. We would never kill somebody just because their parents don't want them or can't take care of them. Pro's argument only works if she can establish that the unborn are not human or not alive, but I have already refuted her arguments to that effect.Her argument also fails because the many children in foster homes didn't get put there immediately after birth. They're there because their parents died, were arrested, or for whatever reason couldn't take care of them. There is no shortage of people adopting new born babies. In fact, people are on waiting lists to adopt new borns.Pro goes on to make irrelevant points. She appears to be comparing the picketing and protesting of abortion to picketing and protesting brain surgery and heart transplant. Whether picketing and protesting anything at all is socially acceptable is irrelevant to the question of whether abortion needs to be legal in all states.In the end, Pro reassures me that she's not going to heckle me or call me names and that I'm entitled to my opinion. I appreciate that.And that's it. Pro hasn't given us any reason to think that abortion ought to be legalized in every state. The burden of proof was on her in this debate since she affirms the resolution. Since I refuted all of her arguments and pointed out the irrelevancies that crept into her posts, I think it's safe to say she hasn't established the resolution.Thank you for reading.