Aboriton should remain illegal

First, the most important matter:I personally take offense at the mentally ill comment because I actually have a close relative who is mentally ill and his life is of great value and that comment is just wrong.I did not mean it like that.My cousins' cousin is severely dissabled. One of my friends was both mentally ill and disabled. I myself am slightly disable with Mild Cerebral Palsy. I meant not to say that these people are of lower value.What I meant was: maybe, if the child will have an exceptionally hard life, it might be right to, as an act of mercy, abort the kid before he can feel pain.________________________________________Although it is certainly a tragic thing and something that merits emotional support and care for the mother in such a situation.Should a mother be forced to endure 18 years of raising a child that is a constant reminder of the tragic event. Should the mother have to change her ENTIRE life because one evil ***** decided to rape her? The mother might have to:1. Have to drop out of school.2. Stay home from work.3. Stay home from friends.4. Tell the grandparents.5. Tell the child.6. Get (expensive) therapy.7. Explain to people (bosses, gov. workers, police, parents) how this baby spontaniously appeared in her uterous.No one deserves that! It isn't the babies fault, mind you, but why not abort it while it is nothing but clumps of cells, or is incapable of thought or brainwaves.What about the child? Should it be forced to live with the truth: that he was conceived by an act of violence that dramatically changed the mothers life, and that they'll never know their father, and that their existance was caused in a horrible event?____________________________________________Therefore, these are short points, but they still serve to prove that a zygote is a human being.You have convinced me that these are indeed humans.I draw reference to vegatative states/long comas. In these instances, we sometimes let the people die. Aborting the baby is a similar thing.A developing baby is very similar to a person in a these conditions: little to no brainwaves, inability to live without outside help._____________________These are not the standards by which we judge human life.It kind of is. Failure to meet these standards are how we justify termination of those in vegitative states and comas.________________Taking it from the physical perspective however, we are all, 100% of us, clumps of cells. I don't get why pro-abortion people use this argument.WE are humans. Our pets are dogs, cats, etc. Babies, at this time, are unable to feel pain. Or think. They do not have most of the fuctions that animals, much less humans, have.__________________________________________________________________Many organisms lack hearts, there is nothing essential human-like about hearts, and cells are lives but do not have hearts.These things are not inherently human, true. But humans require these things to live. If a human has none of these, is it really living? Most likely not?_________________________________________Because the ability to feel pain is not the foundation for the right to life.Very true. However, I was just reasoning that, if you can't feel pain, can't think, don't have a body etc., then it is possibly justified.___________________________But if you insist, would you be in favor of cutting back abortions after 8 weeks?I would be in favor of cutting abortions after 8 weeks, unless it were a "special" case (like rape, or lack of knoweledge of pregnancy, which is VERY rare, or if the baby would have a hard time in life, or if parents cannot care for the child well).Also, though this source isn't infallable, our own Skeptikitten claims that 60% of abortions occurr before 9 weeks.http://www.debate.org...___________________________________That would be a big change and something I would support.I guess my opponent concedes that SOME abortions should be legal.Do I win?