Abortion is wrong

My opponent wants to go around in circles. I am sorry for the mix up last round, I mean to say Pro. I always think he is Con because I am "Pro" abortion. "then her argument can expand to "toddler is making work impossible for the mom... shoot it." She claims that worth is what makes a human life something worth saving. In that sense, there are plenty of grown adults who hinder society and, therefore, should be killed too."- A strawman if I have ever seen one. I never made an assertion like that. I did not say that people who hinders society should be killed, or that because anything or anyone should be killed because they are inconvenient. In fact, I never said anything should be killed! I just think that if it comes to the mother's life being ruined, not just being inconvenient as my opponent would like to assert while ignoring all the complications and effects of pregnancy, and a baby no one cares about and is just going to burden the world being born, the mother should have the right to choose to not have a baby that she did not plan to have. A toddler is already born, people care about it, and hopefully the mother planned to have it. Either way, the mother chose to have that responsibility and so must live with that. Women can take all the precautions in the world and still get pregnant. Even if she did not, her life is more important that the baby's. Aborting a child is nothing like shooting a toddler or killing people because they are detrimental to society. Everyone hurts and helps society. The difference is that those people already have a place in it, the baby has no consciousness. It is not really a person yet as a toddler or other people are. "The unborn are innocent humans, Innocent human life should not be taken for any reason, Therefore, abortion is wrong. I don't know how this is illogical, but I'll try to support it even more. As stated almost every where in this debate, human life is very important and should not be taken"- That is funny cause I showed how this was so in the last round at least. "Innocent human life should not be taken for any reason" is an illogical assertion. I have shown how the less humans there are the better, how innocence is irrelevant, and how just because an animal is a certain species does not make it more important than anything else in other rounds. "y opponent makes two claims that this is wrong: worth and emotion determines the right to life."- Actually I did not say emotion gives someone a right to life. I said that emotion is one of the things that makes a person more than just a living body. "In my last paragraph, I have proved that worth is irreverent."- What? I think you meant irrelevant, which I did not get from that last paragraph lol. "Emotion does not determine one's right to life because animals have emotion and yet they are killed from humans to eat. People is a coma also have no emotion, yet we keep them alive. But I leave this one to my opponent to prove."- I refuted this last round. I never even made that claim. Stop misquoting me! "Last round, I had asked her to say why she though that emotion is so important and rather that proving it, she merely asserted it."- Did you really? I don't remember that, in fact I cannot find it in the debate. Either way, I will answer it now. Emotion causes people to give things meaning and importance. If you had no emotion then you would not care that babies were being aborted. If we had no emotion, we would not be having this debate. The depth of emotion humans possess sets us apart from other animals. No other species cares if other animals of its species is killed. "I don't really care about this since she is willing to admit that the unborn are innocent and are human. All I'm saying is that it's wrong to kill a human when he's innocent, not necessarily when he's uninnocent."- The point of this debate was not to prove that unborn are human and innocent. The point of the debate was to prove abortion is wrong. This actually goes against an earlier claim that you made that said "Humans should not be killed for any reason." I have already shown innocence is irrelevant, thanks for refuting it. You do not get a free win just because you think killing innocent humans is wrong and can support that a fetus is an innocent human. You had to prove WHY that was wrong. I do not think you have since I have refuted your claims and you refuse to refute mine. "She then makes a stab at showing that rational thought is what makes a human a human. My response to this is that a new born also can not achieve rational thought. Many would agree that this does not permit the killing of a new born or even an old person with alzheimers, for that matter. It is also excepted that retarded people are human and should not be killed. Also, I'm not saying that society is always right but, sometimes, knowing the widely excepted position can shed light on the truth."- Do you know how to interpret writing? I never said that rational thought is what makes a human human. I said a greater depth in thinking sets humans apart from other animals and sets the mother apart from an unborn fetus. My opponent misinterprets my posts about emotion, people caring about you, and depth in thinking setting the mother apart from the fetus as being more important and more humans as saying that is what makes someone deserving of life. I think that having these things is what sets an human apart from another living human body. This also what makes the mother more important than the fetus. A retarded person, a person with Alzheimer's, and other such examples made by Pro all have these things or had them at some point. A fetus has not yet possessed these traits that make us truly human. Retarded people an Alzheimer's patients are not kept alive because they are human, but because they have people who care about them. Without those who care about them, they would not receive the care they do and would be left to die. "when I say that "con"(my opponent, pro) does not ave evidence, I'm not referring to facts, ect. I'm referring to the need support for her "philosophical" arguments as they are lacking any support and are mere assertions."- Cause your assertion had more? As I said before, most of these arguments are philosophical. I gave reason why I believe these assertions to be true. I cannot do more than that. Now it is for the voters to decide. "For voters, I will simply say that I have proved that the unborn are human. I have refuted her unsupported claims that humans do not diverse to life unless they have (1) emotion, (2) societal worth, and (3) rational thought. My opponent , on the other hand, has said that although the unborn are human, they lack the necessarily mental attributes that would permit anyone form killing them. She gave three reasons for this but never really elaborated on them or give support. For this reason, I found it difficult to refute what she would say regarding these reasons."- I never made those assertions. Pro twists my words. I have said that emotion, depth of thought, and having those that care about you are what make a person truly human, not their bodies. The mother has these while the fetus does not, this makes her more human. At this point in the fetus's development it is nothing more than a body. This is why the mother has priority. These traits do not make someone worth not killing, nor does lack of them make it ok to kill them. But, having them does give a person priority over another. I went into detail on these traits when I first presented them, and Pro did not refute them. Pro has repeatedly not refuted my claims, left out letters, used words that don't exist, i.e. "uninnocent", and thinks that he has won the debate merely by proving a fetus is an innocent human. I have made claims as to why this is irrelevant, now it is your turn to decide who has made the more convincing arguments. Thank you for reading.