Abortion is a form of murder

I concede Con's re-definition of murder to specify human beings, but I am not so certain of "malice aforethought" ... is that truly identical to the definition of murder as it applies to post-born human beings? If one human being kills another (post-birth) human being (against that person's consent, ridiculous though it may seem to be so specific) with no hateful "malice" in their mind, but merely feeling their destitution or other circumstance makes life too unbearable for that other person, is that not still murder? I am glad my opponent concedes the basic point that if ("only if") a fetus is a human person, is abortion murder. I feel this is a common point of contention, and as petty as I think for most debates for such a single point to be so focused, on abortion I think it a valid "super-focus" that I hope Con concurs is where the vast majority of people on both sides of the issue have their conflict -- at what point someone becomes a human being, whereas whatever they were before was not a human being. I argue Con's determination of a fetus not being human are flawed on the following points Con made - "A fetus brain is not capable of conscious thought or memory." This would seem to correlate with, say, a person in a vegetative state and thus might seem to fit with the Terry Schiavo case where her husband wished to exercise her previously said to him wishes to have herself disconnected from lifesupport in the event where she unfortunately reached of having no reasonable chance of recovery. However, this fails for a 'fetus' because, barring some unforseen tragedy (natural, or in the case of abortion, not natural), as the fetus would 'recover' (or more accurately generate) conscious thought and memory on its own if allowed to live. "A fetus cannot breathe or make sounds." So anyone, even a post-born adult, who is unable to breathe and requires an iron lung to survive (but otherwise is not in a vegetative state) is no longer a human being deserving of protections? The same for a mute person? I call this, too, ridiculous. "A fetus lacks a social identity, an integral part of what we associate with a human being." So does a newborn baby who only knows to cry for mom, or a sufferer of Asperger's Syndrome by some perspectives, or a person who suffers from multiple personalities -- they lack "a social identity" as they have multiple they cannot control. "A fetus cannot be recognized as a legal person" -- This, too, is wrong. I concur that fetuses are NOT recognized as a legal person, but not that they COULD NOT be. This debate is not whether or not a fetus fits the legal definition of a human being currently (its obviously excepted currently), but -- in essence -- whether or not a fetus /should/ be defined as a human being and given the same protections as other human beings. CONCLUSION I have countered each of Con's supports to disprove that a human fetus is a human being, and because this "human being or not a human being" question is the crux of Con's challenge, I assert that I have defeated all of Con's arguments. Notably, Con did not address my specific arguments. I presume (it was not made clear to me from Con's arguments) that the arguments list for why "a fetus is not human" are the support given for the claim that first trimester/second trimester magic border where I gather Con believes a human fetus dons the identity of a human being and deserving of such protections. A human fetus is a human being and deserving of all the rights and protections accorded to other human beings, including the right to life and (by extension) the right to not be murdered.