Abortion is wrong

I would like to begin by sincerely apologizing for being lazy. I just picked one of the arguments that cursorily appealed to me, because I needed something to work with. Here's the problem I'm having here -- you have made claims, and from a personal perspective, you've made claims I agree with. I don't personally like abortion. I personally believe human life has inherent worth. I personally believe in the God of the Bible and that this God disapproves of abortion.However, as Con, I don't believe you've made your case. In your role as Pro, you've been neglecting one of your own premises. The premise that human life has inherent value is an important one to your argument. It's also a premise that, I would argue, very few would disagree with. However, your conclusion does not follow inexorably from the premise that human life has value, because the reason that human life has value is important. I named a few possible warrants for the claim that human life has value, and I picked the one that appeals the most to me. I'll try another, to give you a better understanding of the claim I'm advancing: Personhood (that is, the condition of having intrinsic value and the condition of being respected as an individual rather than being respected as the property or interest of another) begins at the moment when one becomes a conscious moral agent and ends at the moment when it is no longer possible for one to be a conscious moral agent in the future.This claim meets the following criteria:It supports the idea that conscious beings have value and deserve respect.It is coherent with the claims of established and respected philosophers, and could cite many of them as justification: Mill's form of Utilitarianism is the most obvious. To quote Mill: "The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible, is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible, is that people hear it... In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it… No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable, except that each person, so far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness… we have not only all the proof which the case admits of, but all which it is possible to require, that happiness is a good: that each person's happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of all persons."It neatly addresses your example of a cheque being destroyed: a cheque is not a person. It has no value in and of itself, nor any reason to be respected. Its value lies in the utility that a person or persons can derive from it. A person, however, is worth of being respected in and of itself.This statement about the cheque leads us to my argument. I have provided you with my definition of a person. I have provided you with justification (the ends, goals, or interests of a specific entity are only worth of respect insofar as the entity is capable of actually possessing ends, goals, or interests) for my definition of a person. Now, would you not agree that the sole person responsible for a cheque could destroy that cheque should he or she find reason to do so? It would, of course, ordinarily be ridiculous to do so, but a reason could be found. By the same token, a mother-to-be could abort an embryo or fetus, given that it is not a person, should the mother-to-be find sufficient reason.I don't believe this debate has been in any way, shape, or form fair to you. I have been distracted this weekend, and it was utterly unjust of me to expect you to proceed in this debate without my clearly elucidating what requirements you were not meeting until the very last round.To that end, I will forfeit this debate if the website will allow me to do so after I have posted my final argument. If not, I humbly encourage anyone who reads this to not vote at all, or, if you must, in favor of the affirmative.I further ask that my opponent, having read this response and having a more complete understanding of the claims I advance, do me the honor of challenging me immediately to another debate of this same resolution, acting again as the affirmative, that we might give this resolution the attention it deserves.