Abortion is Morally Right

"What makes humans "human" is the fact that they have emotion and color. Many, if not all of our emotions, including stress, pleasure, anger, and fear, are caused by hormones. (Check out http://www.testcountry.org.......) And in order for hormones to be secreted, one must have an endocrine system. However, the fetus hasn't even developed an endocrine system yet; it can't secrete hormones. No hormones, no emotion.Therefore, regardless of the fact the fetus is living, it isn't human nor does it deserve the rights of a person." -OpponentMy opponent has made some unsupported claims here. I know that a fetus doesn't have emotions, I know that it isn't sentient. How does that lead one to believe that a fetus is not a human and does not deserve the same protections as any other human?It sounds like you're proposing: Any organism that doesn't have emotions or sentience -at the present moment- can be destroyed.But consider that the earliest stages of development are not the only time that a human lacks emotion and consciousness. We go emotionless and unconscious for ~8 hours a day, in fact.The very same proposition that seems to allow abortions could just as easily be applied to that of anyone that is momentarily unconscious.This is almost morally identical to you knocking a person unconsious, being fully aware that they will wake in 9 months, and insisting that the person be killed before that happens so that you can save the lives of another person (see below).A fetus is a human being that was brought into existence into the mothers womb, completely without their knowledge or consent. It is a transitionally emotionless, non-sentient, innocent and helpless young human being.And finally. Where does this fetus (non-human according to you) become human? Clearly if it's not human at the moment then there must be a time where this thing flips a switch and turns into a human being, where does that happen? And are you contented that that organism can be destroyed all the way up until that moment? And if you are content with that late of development, are you content that some "real humans" might die by accident? "So, instead of killing 40 million people, (and as I mentioned before, fetuses are not people...) to save 1802 people as my opponent claims, it would be more like aborting 40,000,000 fetuses to save 40,001,802 people." - OpponentYou admit that humans are sentient, but you don't recognize the consequence that this means that people cannot be traded one for another. Murdering 10,000 people isn't justified if it saves 10,000. They are not the same. Every person is inherently unique. Not because they are currently conscious, but because they have the capacity for it.You might as well be saying that if you destroy a farmers crop of corn, providing the same volume of potatoes would be just compensation. Or saying it's a morally superior action to wipe out an entire civilization if a larger population takes its place.Disclaimer:I do appear to be a hippocrite here because I say that a child could be aborted if the mothers life is at risk, but the key difference is that I'm not saying that aborting the child is morally neutral. I'm not saying that if the mother and baby are at risk of death then killing the baby is justified because one died and one lived. No, don't misunderstand me. These are usually complicated situations that are the risk of the mother and baby dying or guaranteeing the life of the mother. A decision between allowing one to die, or homicide. This is not an easy or morally neutral decision. So the decision needs to be made between the doctor and the mother.Think of my hippocracy if I said that the mother should give her life up for the baby. I would be valuing one human life over another, when they are not comparable.When the results of any choice is highly uncertain, then the correct action must be highly uncertain.My position is superiorMy opponent has had to introduce complicated moral rules and structures that are difficult to follow and make little raional sense. My position is this:1.) Human life starts from conception.2.) All human life should be protected from aggression.3.) A human from conception to birth is completely innocent of any wrongdoing.4.) Any attack on that human is aggression.5.) That aggression is only justified when the mother is at risk of death, just like in any other case of homicide.Simple, concise, and easy to follow.No scientifically inaccurate demarcation needs to be made between a fetus and a "human". No special status needs to be given to a embryo or fetus. There's no risk of "accidentally" killing a human. There's no special subjective valuation needed. No complicated rules or legal jargon.TLDR:My opponent cannot sustain her argument for these reasons:1.) She cannot adequately define what a human being is.2.) She asserts that all humans are equally interchangeable when they are not. 3.) She relies on extremely optimistic results for stem cell cures. 4.) She appears to propose that humans should only be protected because they have feelings and sentience, when it's clear that all humans transitionally lose feelings and sentience.My position is superior because it's simpler, coherant, comprehensive, consistent, and doesn't rely on subjective valuation.