it it wrong to have an abortion

I accept this debate and will be arguing Con for the following resolution: It is wrong to have an abortionDefinitions Abortion -- the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus (1) Wrong -- "something wrong, immoral, or unethical; especially : principles, practices, or conduct contrary to justice, goodness, equity, or law" (2) Obviously Pro, in affirming this resolution and instigating this debate, will possess the sole burden of proof to demonstrate to us that abortion is categorically wrong.I will now rebut her arguments, and then provide several of my own. Pro states, "morally it's wrong because as soon as a sperm and egg meet it's a baby soon why kill it when you've just given it life."First, Pro makes an appeal to objective morality, which she must be able to bear out. If morality is subjective -- differing between individuals, societies, cultures, etc. -- this claim and this resolution fall apart. She must be able to prove that morality transcends human beings and that abortion is ipso facto wrong. Next, she says that sperm + egg = baby, and therefore it is morally wrong to "kill." It is indeed true that cell division begins at conception, but how do we equate this with personhood? For instance, when does personhood begin, when does pregnancy begin, and when does what began as a zygote gain legal rights? Is it before or after successful implantation, before which many zygotes miscarry? If miscarriage itself murder? My opponent could make the case that this occurs at conception, though legal rights are not conferred until viability, per Roe v. Wade. However, she needs to back up this claim and demonstrate to us why this must be the case, bearing in mind that appeals to religion and ensolument cannot establish a universal framework since, of course, not everyone follows her brand of religion or even any religion. Po states, "morally it's wrong because as soon as a sperm and egg meet it's a baby soon why kill it when you've just given it life."Pro suggests that not having an abortion affirms the "right to be born free." However, this doesn't impact that right at all; if a fetus is aborted, the fetus is by definition not born. If the right to be born free were extended to pre-born beings, then there would be a moral obligation to "be fruitful and multiply." If that were the case, then debating on Debate.Org instead of getting busy multiplying would be a violation of moral conduct. Would Pro like to argue this case?Pro states, "if the mother doesn't want the child she can always give it up for adoption or give it to someone who can care for the baby but the mother can have easy access to see the baby."Pro ignores the gruesome process of 9 months of pregnancy along with the physical and financial burden not only of carrying the fetus to term, but with giving up it either for adoption or to "someone who can care for it," the latter of which is nothing more than a hypothetical fantasy. Not to mention, adoption centers are near full to capacity. Why would Pro want to make this problem worse?C1) Bodily Autonomy This is the most common argument in favor of abortion rights. The argument essentially boils down to this: her body, her choice as to what she does with it. This certainly wouldn't extend to the entirety of the pregnancy -- that is, most people would agree that there is a good argument for restricting late-term abortions. However, I don't need to defend late-term abortions; rather, my opponent needs to prove to us why abortion is categorically wrong in all cases, and why the rights of the fetus supplant the rights of the moher. C2) Extreme CasesFor my opponent to prove to us that abortion is categorically wrong, she must prove that it its therefore wrong in every case without exception. But how about cases of rape or incest? Are you going to force a woman or girl who has just been traumatized to carry the baby to term? How about in the case of a teenager who was sexually assaulted? What if the mother's life or health is at risk? What if she may die if she carries the fetus to term? What if the fetus has a severe abnormality and will not survive the course of the pregnancy?These represent several moral gray areas, which is why abortion should be best be left to the people most intimately involved, instead of enforced by the government.C3) Morality is SubjectiveMy opponent's assertion, essentially, is that abortion is categorcially wrong. However, can she prove objective morality? Can she prove that morality transcends the human condition and isn't subjective to opinion and disagreement? To uphold her own BOP, she must demonstrate that objective morality exists and that abortion is objectively wrong in all cases.(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...;