Abortion is murder and should be illegal

When I first started the debate I proposed the notion that Abortion is murder and laid out the foundation of life and how we define life that notion still stands and I have not seen anything to hinder this view. Con has made several claims that the human fetus is merely a parasite and when I addressed to Con that Con is degrading the human life Con quickly acknowledged that it was indeed human. Con also gave accreditation to my claim that a fetus is a result of two humans having sex but moments later Con makes the statement that this fetus is not up to her standards of "personhood". I would ask the audience - what is personhood without life? If you cut the being's chance of ever achieving "personhood" out in the very beginning, how is it possible for the baby to achieve Con's standard of "personhood". Also, "personhood" is logical fallacy. To give an example of this, A blind person has a dog that opens doors, shows them where to walk, and serves them as company. This human is reliant on this dog for basic stuff. Is the blind person not as much as a person as you or I? Is a person bound to wheelchair not a person in Con's definition? Con continues to refer to the human fetus as a parasite rather than a life because Con knows that if she acknowledges life than the debate leans to the common sense logic of - killing life is murder. Con then gives us an example of self defense being a legitimate reason to kill someone, I would like to point out that this is a fallacious argument because I do not believe in killing anyone and I do not think Con speaks for everyone's view on the acceptance of killing someone no matter the circumstances. Con is taking a generalization of self defense and comparing this to the killing of the unborn, as if the unborn is attacking its mother. I would like to point out to Con that the building blocks of life are preordained by nature and I promise Con that the baby is only taking what it needs to survive, unlike a thief or attacker. Con then attempts to give us an example by placing a victim of a car accident in the same scenario as a mother who has become pregnant. I would like to point out that the baby is not an accident. The act of sex is to reproduce. I can not stress this enough to Con. When a woman becomes pregnant, nature has taken it's course and everything is going exactly to plan. Con's car accident argument fails because a car accident is an accident. Con then attempts an attack of character on my part because I defend the life of a child who is the product of rape. I would like to point out to the audience that rape happens in nature and most Atheist will even to go so far as to defend rape as it natural in the animal kingdom. Con then calls the child a "spawn", although rape victims are so far down the chain in people who get abortions that it is almost not worth mentioning , the life that is forming in the mothers womb is still the mothers child and an alternative is adoption. Murder is never justifiable and I can not stress that enough in this debate because Con will continuously attempt to give examples of horrid conditions that make up the smallest percentile of those who receive abortions. The majority of healthy, not products of rape, fetuses are the ones that are sent to the abortionist. Again, I will like to point out that this debate is not "When is Abortion justifiable" . Con attempts to then explain birth control and how it is ineffective sometimes, again. .the act of sex is to reproduce and nature doesn't appreciate cheaters. I have laid down the foundation of life and the genetic blueprint of humanity for the audience. I ask that you vote on the topic at hand and not whether it is right in certain circumstances. Although diminishing the fetus by constantly calling it a parasite, Con did acknowledge that it is human life. If you were aborted, we wouldn't be having this debate right now.