Abortion is both inherrently unethical and should be illegal

Woo hoo! We're upwards of a few paragraphs now! This is getting good.So, first off, my opponent's entire last round is composed of mostly new arguments. This is unfair because, as I already stated, instead of using this round for what it was supposed to be doing (summarizing the debate), I have to respond to entirely new arguments that if I don't respond to, I lose. This is inherently unfair for me, and thus I ask that you ignore the vast majority of his last round (save the talk about why murder is unjust, as that isn't a new argument). Moreover, let's presume he's right about morality being based off of fairness. This means that my opponent himself is being immoral by his own proposed theory because he's being inherently unfair to me by violating the accepted rules of debating (last rounds are summaries). This contradicts his entire framework, and thus is a reason why we don't look to his arguments, if we're even looking to them in the first place.And if we do end up looking to his arguments, lets spend time responding to them.My opponent argues that the entire idea of morality is based off of fairness. However, he does nothing to warrant why this is true, but rather just asserts that it's true. Moreover, saying that morality is based off of fairness only begs the question of why be fair. He provides no warrant for that as well. My opponent's argument that morality is objective because it's not what people think is correct but rather what is actually correct, but this actually doesn't address the issue since what is actually correct is determined by the individual. To say that this isn't the case is to deny the fact that humans are individualistic by nature. You can refer back to my argument that in order for morality to be objective, there wouldn't be any disagreement in ideals of right and wrong. Since there is, this debate is proof enough, then morality cannot be objective. Thus, this argument fails.Moreover, my opponent still doesn't provide some sort of ethical system under which to prove that abortion is inherently immoral. This is the warrant for why my opponent's theory of why his argument that morality is based off of fairness only begs the question because it doesn't explain why we ought to be fair. My opponent's response to that would be "because it's moral to be fair" but that's just tautological. My opponent is doing nothing to warrant his ethical claims, and thus cannot prove his BOP. Also just realized that my opponent's ad hom "Looking at morality seriously requires abstract thinking, the likes of which you are obviously not using." is highly funny since I'm known for running abstract philosophical arguments in debates (http://debate.org...).The next paragraph is my opponent says that the warrant for why abortion is murdering a human is that murder is killing someone. That literally does nothing to warrant his claim or respond to my objection. That's like me saying "Murder is bad", my opponent responding "There's no reason why killing someone is bad" and me responding to that with "Murder is bad because it's killing someone". It literally doesn't respond at all. My opponent then concedes that the fetus is just a collection of cells that have human DNA, which exactly proves the counter-examples I gave. My opponent also ad homs at the end of that paragraph, which is giving me quite the case of the giggles.Also, the following paragraph from my opponent makes literally no sense:"Ignorance is independent of being. Until 2 months ago, I did not know that the capital of Lichtenstein was Vaduz. I was ignorant of my outside surroundings, but I was still a human being. Until a few days ago, you were unaware that I existed, yet you were still a human being. Humans are ALWAYS ignorant of their surroundings to some degree. Do you remember Plato’s story of the men in a cave? They were there their whole lives, as ignorant as babies, and yet they were also human."What relevance this has to the debate is beyond me. I guess I'm just too ignorant to know ;)Also, I don't know what paramecium have to do with abortion, but if you really have stuff growing in your pond, you should probably clean it out every once in a while. Not exactly the most sanatary thing ever.Also, my opponent then asks why I keep bringing up the ovulation and masturbation arguments, and this is why: 1) because you dropped them, and they work as offense for me, so why wouldn't I, and then 2) because they perfectly counter the point you make that anything that has the potential to be human has the right to life, meaning that killing it is murder. Since masturbation kills sperm cells (I mean, it would be awkward if it didn't. Just sitting there pumping the goo gun and you don't even fire? Awkward...) and ovulation kills female egg cells, everyone who went through that would be a murderer according to your argument. Which means that every female and most males would be jailed on murder charges. Does that sound right to you?So, now that my opponent's new arguments this round have been refuted, I can finally get to summarizing the debate.1. My opponent does nothing to prove that morality is objective. He doesn't refute the arguments I made for morality being subjective, and his new-in-the-last-round arguments for objective morality didn't make any sense and were refuted by me. Insofar as he's not doing that, he cannot warrant that something is inherently immoral, as a subjective morality denies that something can always be inherently immoral, and thus negates the resolution.2. My opponent is not doing anything to warrant his ethical claims. His arguments that morality is based off of fairness only beg the question of why be fair, and he cannot prove that outside of some ethical system that determines what is moral and what isn't moral. He has yet to provide an ethical framework to evaluate the resolution under, and thus cannot say that something is inherently immoral, because it only begs the question of why it is or why we should be moral or abide by morality's principles and guidelines, and thus negates the resolution. 3. My opponent has failed to justify why abortion is murder. His attempts at it have been weak, at best, and he hasn't answered any of my arguments. Since he's not justifying why it's murder, he cannot warrant his BOP to prove that abortion is murder and thus immoral. This means the resolution is negated.4. My opponent isn't doing enough work to defend against my refutations. I've refuted all of my opponent's arguments, while my opponent just keeps reiterating the same old points over and over again and has now started to resort to ad hominem attacks against me. He's not doing enough work to prove his case true, and thus cannot win the debate.Thus, the resolution is negated.