Abortion is murder and should be illegal

To begin, I would just like to comment that the indisputable fact that had my mother chosen to have an abortion when she was pregnant with me I would not exist, nor be able to participate in debate, is completely irrelevant to the content of this debate. The resolution is not "belle's mother should have had an abortion" or anything along those lines. Your attempt to sway me through such emotional appeals adds nothing to your case. That said- onwards! Pro seems to think that I was at some point laboring under the delusion that a fetus is not human. What I am actually saying is that the terms human and parasite are not mutually exclusive. If any being having human DNA is defined as human than any human is perfectly capable of also being a parasite. He also persists in claiming that since the fetus is alive and it is human, killing it is murder. However, as my definition in R1 stated, which he did not contest, murder is the unjustified killing of a person. It follows that if I can show either than the fetus is not a person or that killing it is justified I have fulfilled my burden in this debate. As it stands, I have done both. Pro seems to be arguing that since a fetus is a potential person, it is entitled to the same protections a fully realized person is. However, stipulating that murder consists in the destruction of a potential person leads quickly to absurdity. An ovum is also a potential person and women disgard them on a monthly basis through menstruation. And of course millions of "potential people" are thus destroyed everytime a man masturbates. Masturbation isn't murder! Even granting the "personhood" of a fetus however, Pro fails to show that abortion is unjustified. He first of all distorts my argument to say that all forms of dependence are justifications for killing, which I never implied at all. I said that if the only two options for the fetus are: (1) complete physical dependence on a specific individual person or (2) death that the person has the right to sever the connection between the fetus and herself, thus causing the death of said fetus. This dependence relation is only justification for killing when those conditions hold. The lady with the seeing eye dog is, first of all, not dependent on another person but on an animal. Second, she could find another dog that could do the job just as well. A fetus cannot find another womb if the owner of the one it finds itself in does not wish to house it. I am also unclear whether or not Pro believes killing in self defence is justified, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt here. He claims that a fetus is "only taking what it needs to survive" and thus the mother's act is not one of self defence. However, shooting a starving theif who is breaking in to your home is no less justified than shooting an affluent one. The "need" of the attacker in self defence cases is irrelevant. Pro further claims that pregnancy is not an accident but this is simply laughable. Any result coming about from an act that is not intended is accidental. Simply because pregnancies are sometimes the result of sexual activity, it doesn't follow that they are the intended result. In the same way, car accidents are sometimes the result of driving on public roads, but they are almost certainly not the intended result. Finally, I have said nothing about my opponent's character, only about his position; namely that rape victims who choose to have abortions are, by his logic, murderers. I believe I have shown why this view is fallicious.