In some cases, abortion can be ruled as a justifiable homicide.

I would like to start off by apologising for forfeiting due to other recent commitments. I would also like to remind PRO that my forfeiture does not warrant him/her as other factors ought to be accounted for when voting. PRO has not responded to my previous characterisation of the problem that legally justified abortion is not homicide, thus I assume this point falls to me. Though I have already fulfilled my BOP through doing so, I will extend my case under the premise that abortion is in fact classified as homicide for whatever reason for the sake of this debate.I would also like to amend one of my definitions, in which I wrongly defined the term 'murder' instead of homicide'. Here is the revised definition:Homicide: The killing of one person by another. [1]As one can see, the definition still concerns that of a human and thus my previous characterisation that abortion is not a form of homicide still stands.I will first rebut the exceptional cases that raised by PRO in their previous argumentsEctopic pregnancyDespite the ugly truth that ectopic pregnancies are often lethal for both the mother and the child in the latter stages of pregnancy, there is one thing that PRO has overlooked in their forceful attempt to appeal to our sympathies - that the medical procedures performed to combat ectopic pregnancy are not abortion.If PRO were to call my earlier definition of abortion, he/she would realise that abortion is the DELIBERATE termination of pregnancy. In other words, any course of action taken in the name of abortion has the sole aim to end the life of the fetus/baby inside of the womb. There are two main medical procedures that are normally undertaken under legal terms:1. Laparoscopic surgery - involves small incisions to facilitate removal of infected tissue (not urgent)2. Organ removal surgery - extracting the fallopian tubes and ovaries (dire)In both cases, the intention is to save the life of the mother and the fetus/baby, not death. Death may very well be a byproduct of these procedures, or may simply be the last in a series of symptoms indicating the mother's deteriorating health. Either way, it is never a direct result of the procedure and thus said procedure is not an abortion, given that the treatment is carried out in accordance to standard regulations. In other words, ectopic pregnancies are NOT relevant to this debate.PTSD caused by rape/incestThere are two approaches to alleviating the trauma one experiences from being raped or after engaging in incest without terminating the life of the fetus:1. Counselling and psychological therapy, and in rare cases2. Artificially inducing labour followed by intensive care for the premature infant to minimise duration of pregnancyCounselling is not only free of any medical complications, it is also the most effective approach by far, as it deals with the root of the issue that is the rape/incestuous act. Professor Stephen Krason at Franciscan University sings its praises [2]:"when given the proper support, most pregnant rape victims progressively change their attitudes about their unborn child from something repulsive to someone who is innocent and uniquely worthwhile."To make matters even clearer, it has been medically substantiated that abortion may actually exacerbate the problem of PTSD rather than a method that seeks to heal it. A study revealed that 44% out of the hundreds of women surveyed reported abnormal levels of nervousness, and 60% have actually contemplated suicide [3].In order for abortion to be rendered legitimate on both a moral and functional basis (even if the BOP only states that he do so for some cases), PRO must prove that abortion is the only effective and feasible option to achieve the goal of safeguarding the mother's interest. In this case, I have brought to the table alternatives that are capable of doing so WITHOUT the expense of the baby, while proving that abortion is actually more harmful than beneficial in terms of psychological wellbeing.I will now address the principle side of this debate and talk about why it is unfair on the fetus/baby assuming that we disregard my argument that abortion is not homicide and that the fetus/baby is qualitatively identical to that of a human being.The baby is not the aggressorIn all cases of abortion, whether it be selective or in exceptional cases, the baby is never the cause of the ordeal because it cannot be held accountable for its own conception. If PRO is to characterise the baby as a human, why is it, then, morally permissible for the law to discriminate against the baby because of its circumstance of conception and ability to make decisions, especially when everyone is supposedly "equal in front of the law"? Why should the mother's life be prioritised over the life of the baby both in cases where the presence of the baby does and does not threaten the survival of the mother if one is to argue that the baby is a legitimate human? Simply put, I do not have the right to kill someone because they resembled the assassin who shot my grandfather. The person has no authority over his appearance in relation to the assassin, nor does he/she have control over the fact that said I am deeply disturbed by the prospect of said assassin. Similarly, a baby/fetus should not be subjected to death for the action of his/her parents, nor should it or anyone, for that matter, be killed to alleviate the suffering of another person.The baby did not choose its parentsOnce again, we are sticking with the principle that all humans should receive equally moral treatment given that the fetus is now considered a human. It is hardly fair and equal that some fetuses are graced with the opportunity of life while some are abruptly killed over contexts and circumstances that they had no control over. The fetus is not given the choice of whether it wants to be born into a victim of PTSD or born into a mother as an ectopic pregnancy or born into a successful and normal pregnancy. Hence, in the name of equality, it is never moral to kill fetuses who happened to be born into less-than-ideal situations.I understand that there are instances such as miscarriages and unsuccessful deliveries where the baby dies inadvertently. These can be equated to people who die in life through means of natural disasters or tragic accidents whereby they made no contributions to the fruition of these events. These cases should not be taken into consideration for this discussion as the matter being debated here is equality under the premise that the life of the fetus is free of these unexpected situations.Broaden the contextAll exceptional cases that often raised in defense for the moral legitimacy of abortion (i.e. mother is a drug addict, mother cannot financially support baby) INCLUDING the two raised by PRO are not logically sound for the simple fact that no one makes such arguments about children after birth. If one is to characterise a fetus as a human and advocate for the mother's right to kill said baby for various reasons, then surely the mother is justified in killing a child just because the child reminds the mother of the time she was raped or because the child is depleting the mother of her monetary supply.Only we don't hear about abortion advocates or anyone rooting for the right of the mother to kill the child in these instances. This is a lack of consistency in when a human is eligible to his/her right to life and thus warrants a logical fallacy in any attempt to morally justify abortion.CONCLUSIONI have proven to you that PRO's exceptional cases are not ethically sound, and have demonstrated that even if my argument that abortion is not homicide does not stand, abortion in general is still not morally permissible. Thank you.[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[2] http://www.christiananswers.net...[3] http://afterabortion.org...