Resolved - Abortion Should Be Legal

My opponent argued that although a fetus has not yet developed all the components necessary to be a person, it is just about to and therefore living. However, just because something has the potential to become a person doesn't automatically give it the same rights as a person. If this were the case, every time a woman had her period, we would have to arrest her for murder because her egg didn't develop into a zygote. My opponent then stated that just calling another human a human doesn't make killing it okay. However, I have given my criteria for being defined as a person, and a fetus does not meet those requirements. Being a human simply requires the joining of a sperm and egg cell. However, being a person requires certain mental capabilities (please don't make the argument about disabled people - I've already explained the differences). As my opponent has not stated their reasoning for why a fetus should be considered a person, I believe my arguments on the matter stand firm. I also wish to point out that I would never make the argument that because something is legal, it is inherently right - clearly that is not true. My opponent claimed that by stating that no work is being done on early stages of pregnancy (to prevent miscarriages and chemical pregnancies and such) but then stating that scientists are working to predict miscarriages, I was contradicting myself. This is not the case. Scientists are working to PREDICT miscarriages, not PREVENT them. Once again, my opponent missed by point - my logic is not that the Pro-Life community should focus only on miscarriages, my point is that by focusing exclusively on abortions and ignoring other causes of fetal deaths, the Pro-Life community is contradicting itself when it states that 'every life matters'. This is not a red herring - this argument is meant to prove inconsistencies in Pro-Life logic. My opponent argued that by stating some of the arguments they brought up were irrelevant, I was being hypocritical. I did try to keep all of my arguments relevant but, looking back, I can see the logic behind that and I apologize if that is the case. However, I wish to point out that a) I still responded to the arguments presented (which, by the way, I do not see any rebuttals to) and b) this accusation doesn't have anything to do with the arguments I presented at all. My opponent then stated that my claim that the institution is more concerned about the preservation of a life than its quality was a 'baseless myth'. They also cited prominent Pro-Life activists and stated my claim that there is a 'hidden agenda' is incorrect. Once again, I will say this: it isn't the people, but the institution I don't trust. As I already gave my arguments for this in the previous round, I don't feel the need to restate them. Finally, I wish to point out that my opponent actually refuted few of my arguments this round, ignoring a good portion of them. Instead, they chose to fixate on smaller inconsistencies that don't really have any significant bearing on my arguments at all. Many of the arguments presented have little statistical or factual basis. When voting on this debate, I merely ask that you don't let personal opinions influence your choice, but vote for the person you truly think argued their point the best. Thank you for your time.