Abortion is wrong

Just a clarification, I am actually pro; my opponent is con. It's kind of funny looking back at the previous round with claims about the con and then seeing the her picture with "con" under it. Alright, back to business. If my opponent is willing to accept that unborn children are human, then her argument can expand to "toddler is making work impossible for the mom... shoot it." She claims that worth is what makes a human life something worth saving. In that sense, there are plenty of grown adults who hinder society and, therefore, should be killed too. Furthermore, I again ask the question, is it a right / an option to kill a toddler of teenager due to circumstances that would make life easier? I would say no and most would agree with me. The agreement would be on the value of human life, regardless of societal worth. The real con makes remakes about the logic in my claims: The unborn are innocent humans, Innocent human life should not be taken for any reason, Therefore, abortion is wrong. I don't know how this is illogical, but I'll try to support it even more. As stated almost every where in this debate, human life is very important and should not be taken (debate me on capital punishment and we can go in specifics). y opponent makes two claims that this is wrong: worth and emotion determines the right to life. In my last paragraph, I have proved that worth is irreverent. In this paragraph, I will address the claim that emotion is what determines the right to life. Emotion does not determine one's right to life because animals have emotion and yet they are killed from humans to eat. People is a coma also have no emotion, yet we keep them alive. But I leave this one to my opponent to prove. Last round, I had asked her to say why she though that emotion is so important and rather that proving it, she merely asserted it. For this reason, I will not be able to further address it nor will I be able to refute whatever nonsense she claims, pending she does something more that assert it. She continues this innocent discussion that she had earlier deemed as irrelevant. I'm not so sure why she keeps pushing it, but ok. I don't really care about this since she is willing to admit that the unborn are innocent and are human. All I'm saying is that it's wrong to kill a human when he's innocent, not necessarily when he's uninnocent. "Con likes to make excuses not to refute my claims" Yeah, whatever. You (con) likes to make excuses not to refute my (con) claims. Cograts, you have no idea which side you're on. She then makes a stab at showing that rational thought is what makes a human a human. My response to this is that a new born also can not achieve rational thought. Many would agree that this does not permit the killing of a new born or even an old person with alzheimers, for that matter. It is also excepted that retarded people are human and should not be killed. Also, I'm not saying that society is always right but, sometimes, knowing the widely excepted position can shed light on the truth. And as a final thought, when I say that "con"(my opponent, pro) does not ave evidence, I'm not referring to facts, ect. I'm referring to the need support for her "philosophical" arguments as they are lacking any support and are mere assertions. Furthermore, she does need fact for things like the unborn not having emotion, nerds having girlfriends, ect. For voters, I will simply say that I have proved that the unborn are human. I have refuted her unsupported claims that humans do not diverse to life unless they have (1) emotion, (2) societal worth, and (3) rational thought. My opponent , on the other hand, has said that although the unborn are human, they lack the necessarily mental attributes that would permit anyone form killing them. She gave three reasons for this but never really elaborated on them or give support. For this reason, I found it difficult to refute what she would say regarding these reasons.