Abortion is immoral

The resolution, "Abortion is immoral" is an assertion of objectivity. That is to say, my opponent claims that it is objectively true that abortion is immoral, and anyone who thinks otherwise is mistaken. To debunk this, I will show that morals are subjective, and therein, not able to be stated in objective, absolute terms, such as the one featured in the resolution.To prove that morals are subjective, I will demonstrate the following:We observe objective facts. Driven by our biases, we place value on objective facts.This leads to a conclusion based on criterion of bias, thus creating a subjective conclusion.I will run through three examples, each scaling up in the "hard to swallow" scale. Does that sound dumb? Too late at night to tell..Ex 1You have a red honda civic and a blue honda civic. That is the objective, observable fact. You have a bias towards the color blue, so you place a value on blue, that value being 'better'. Therefore, your conclusion is that the blue civic is better than the red civic. We can see however, that the conclusion of 'better' was only reached because of a subjective preference (bias) towards the color blue. This example is so easy to swallow that many people would preface their conclusion with 'in my opinion', because they realize that one cannot objectively claim the blue car is better than the red car.Ex 2Ok, let's say I call my math teacher a c*nt. The objective fact is that I called her a c*nt. The bias comes in when you consider the teacher and I. Do you hate me? Do you hate the teacher? Do you like both of us? And etc, etc. Depending on your bias towards either of us, you might conclude, "Oh she had that coming, stupid c*nt," or maybe you'd conclude (if you didn't like me) that, "He's being a jacka**, she totally didn't deserve that." Again, we can see that there is no objective answer, because the answer is always driven by bias towards certain facts. If you did not have a bias, any bias at all, you would not be able to make a decision; because bias is at it's very core preference, and without preference you will not make a choice or reach a conclusion. Therefore, if one is reaching a moralistic conclusion, they have to have a preference, and preferences are another way to say biases, and biases are subjective to an individual.Ex 3I toss a baby in hot wax. Obviously, it is an objective, observable fact that I did that. Our biases in that situation are towards babies, because they're frikin cute. We also have a bias against pain, because we don't like that stuff. So we see something we like, having something done to it that we don't like. Our biases lead us to reach the conclusion that this is morally wrong. But again, as always, our conclusion is driven by bias, which is subjective, therefore our conclusion is subjective.So let's apply this to abortion. There are many stages at which to abort a babe; I won't go through all of them. But for example, let's say it doesn't have any organs or other things we associate with developed humans; it just is dividing cells currently. So the objective fact is that currently there are dividing cells, which, if we let divide long enough, will become a human. Our biases towards this fact affect our conclusion. Perhaps you have a bias towards the idea that if left alone, it will become like you and I. Perhaps you have a bias against the suffering of an unwilling mother. Either of these are subjective preferences; concluding one is more important than the other is based on subjective values. My opponent might try to argue that her perspective is the right one, but in the end all her arguments will be exposed as subjective.So in the end I conclude this: Abortion is not immoral, because morals are opinions, and therefore the statement is invalidated because some people do not share the opinion it expresses.