Is abortion moral

I will be rebutting my opponent's round 1 and 2. My opponent doesn't give any sources, so technically, all of the text that she gave are bare assertions. I will give the framework that I couldn't give last round, even though there's no particular need in it. Framework My framework will be centered around liberty. If a fetus is a human, or a living thing, then it has liberty, and the right of life. Though the liberty of the mother is also there. If it doesn't, then it has no liberty, and it is harming the mother's liberty to her body, so abortion should be legal. My framework will be important around the debate to see if the fetus has the liberty and right of life. If we are still banning abortion, then it is a harm to the mother's liberty, which contradicts this framework, making it ILLEGAL, as liberty is the 1st amendment [7], and the government needs to give the life, liberty and security of one's self, and does not do its job, hence it is illegal. Round 1 As I have clearly said in my first round, the fetus is no living, and it does not meet all of the seven characteristics which are needed in life. Because the fetuses are not living, there don't have any rights, so the argument that if violates the rights of a fetus is wrong because the fetus has *no* rights. The fetus isn't part of the woman, but it does relate, and can harm the women. Many abortions occur because of the fetus-harming. The mother has the liberty, but then it cannot harm others, (harm principle), and the fetus doesn't count as other because it is not a living being. But blocking a fire exit harms others, so it is anyways not allowed, and people will just push. The Fetus is not part of the woman, I know that, and that's not what I am talking about. The fetus is like an annoying mosquito, and she can choose the outcome. If the fetus hurts her, she has rights too, when the fetus doesn't have rights. From this, I have proven that my opponent's arguments are wrong, and abortion should be legal. Round 2 I have already gave the sources, and it is in many textbooks. It is a waste to give more sources, as I already gave a few. What the opponent's list is a bare assertion, and many of them are in my list, and the fetus doesn't follow it. With that point anyways, Con can't win anything. 1 isn't a necessity, it's just what they have. Like it is the same thing if I have a brain or not. It isn't a characteristic. My opponent responded to a few of the characteristics, but she didn't talk about some like excretion, nutrition, etc. So, the fetus is not living, and it's just a plain fact, there no way you can oppose it, just like arguing that the Earth is flat when it obviously isn't flat. Now to illegal abortions. Unsafe abortions do occur in developing countries, around 90% of them, but that isn't the point. First of all, there *ARE* Illegal Abortions in countries, even the US is the point. The fetus doesn't deserve human rights, and it is safer to kill them for the mother, who has rights. Even though abortion wasn't a huge cause of death, there are a thousand every year, and that's a lot, but not in percentage. Maybe in 1957 there were a few, but there is a *major* difference in population, so of course the numbers will be different. Now teens. Who will teach them to become responsible for a baby? A school? It just suddenly happens, and the whole life of a teenager is destroyed. Imagine if you are in high school, with tests, and you have a BABY to take care of. That's big amount of stress. Therefore abortions should be allowed. Many of the late term abortions are because of the pain of the mother, and it is done because of emergency. So it doesn't really need much importance.