Aboriton should remain illegal

Let's go through Con's points and see where he fails to rebut my argument. Then I will restate my argument. His comments in bold, mine are plainWhat 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.But the problem is this: Who are YOU or ANYONE ELSE to decide what lives are less valuable? If you say it is an act of mercy to kill, then it follows that the life is not valuable. 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.YOU TOO are a clump of cells. Everyone is. That argument is completely absurd. We are all clumps of cells. I draw reference to vegatative states/long comas. In these instances, we sometimes let the people die. Aborting the baby is a similar thing.Aborting does not equal letting die. Tearing apart an infant from the uterus is not letting, its doing. 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?The zygote is a living cell. You say I have convinced you that it is human. It follows therefore that it is a living human. 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.Possibly is not the same as actually. This is life and death, we need more certainty. Even so, does that mean if you kill someone in their sleep painlessly it is justified? What do you mean don't have a body? Who said an embryo is not a body? I say it is a body, a human body, albeit a small one and one that needs to develop to become an ADULT body. I guess my opponent concedes that SOME abortions should be legal.Do I win? Absolutely not! I do not concede that. Please read my actual arguments. I ask you if YOU concede that some abortions should be made illegal. I explicitly stated that of course all abortions should remain illegal and all are bad. The point was that by your own logic you should admit that many abortions are wrong and should be illegal. That would be a compromise position for me, but a better one than the current situation. Now, on to my argument. It consists of 3 simple premises:1) Abortion is the direct killing of life in the womb2) The life in the womb is human3) The government has the duty to protect humans from being murdered As for premise 1, this should be obvious. Any abortion procedure has as its direct goal the termination of the life in the womb. It is accomplished in ways that are explicitly designed to terminate the pregnancy usually by first killing the fetus and then expelling it. However, direct explusion even before killing it would be murder because it is the inducement of certain death of the unborn child for the sake of ending the pregnancy. How could anyone doubt that this is direct killing or at least has the same quality as direct killing of the life in the womb? Premise 2 is simple, you concede this point and I have defended it elsewhere: You have convinced me that these are indeed humans.Premise 3 should be relatively uncontraversial.