In some cases, abortion can be ruled as a justifiable homicide.

PRO has evidently not read the section in my previous argument where I addressed the matter of ectopic pregnancy. I very clearly stated that, in correlation with the definition of 'abortion', any medical course of action with the aim of resolving ectopic pregnancies should not be classified as an act of abortion because the death of the baby/fetus is not a desired effect nor direct result but rather an accidental byproduct. PRO has also not responded to all three of my principle arguments on abortion under the premise that the fetus is qualitatively equivalent to a human, thus the principle arguments fall to my side of the house. On the issue of counseling and PTSD, I was the only side of the house to actually prove the aspect of efficacy. I have proven to you the effectiveness of counseling through my quote of Professor Krason and simultaneously and statistically demonstrated that PRO's model of abortion to combat PTSD actually aggravates the problem instead of solving it. And this is assuming that the aspect of effectiveness even matters in the first place. PRO must uphold the fact that abortion is the only way to achieve the purpose it was designed to serve, and that it is more morally permissible than other alternatives. I have brought to the table two alternatives, and I believe it is undisputed when I say that said two alternatives of counseling and labour induction are easily more morally permissible simply because they do not necessitate the death of the fetus/baby. PRO keeps on raising hypothetical and hollow questions such as "What if. .. " and "Are you saying that. .. ?" What is absent from PRO's arguments is his substantiation for these claims that he makes. It is not upon my side of the house to refute his points (even though I have done so) unless PRO demonstrates it to be logically sound first. Raising exceptional cases where the morally legitimate nature of killing the fetus is more controversial does not equate to that being justified. As CON, I am burdened with the responsibility to prove at least one of the following things:1. That abortion is not morally permissible in all cases2. That abortion is not homicideI have fulfilled the second entry in Round 1 by saying that abortion is not homicide because the fetus at hand is not a human. I have fulfilled the first entry in the remaining rounds by rebutting examples raised by PRO of which he believes justifies that abortion is sometimes morally permissible, and arguing that abortion is never morally permissible through three principle arguments. I have also argued on both sides of the debate: when the fetus at hand is not considered a human, and when it is considered a human. PRO has to prove both of the following:1. Abortion is homicide by nature2. Abortion is sometimes morally permissible PRO has not responded to all three of my principle arguments on abortion under the premise that the fetus is qualitatively equivalent to a human, nor has he been able to sufficiently substantiate his two exceptional cases or reply to my contentions against them. Hence, he does not fulfill his BOP. Because I was the only interactive side of the house that has provided ample reasoning and supporting analysis for my arguments and the only side of the house that has fulfilled its BOP, I should be the one to take this debate.