Abortion is wrong

I use science to prove that the unborn are human. By using one direct quote and providing other references, I support my claim that the unborn are human. This has been used to shift the discussion of the argument for "Is it wrong to kill the unborn" to "Is it wrong to kill human for the sake of convenience, ect." I have brought the debate to that level and yet my opponent has not provided any counter claims. with the use of scientific evidence. I use philosophy not for its direct answers with facts but, rather, with logic. I have provided the acronym SLED to support my case that the unborn are only different from adults in (1) size, (2) level of development, (3) environment, and (4) degree of dependency. I even provide an explanation for each. For the sake of the readers' convenience, I will also provide the explanations here: "Size: It is true that embryos are much smaller than adults but since when does size matter? Males are generally larger that females but that does not mean that they should get more rights. Level of Development: Yes, embryos are less developed that you and I. But, again, how is this relevant? 5 year olds are more developed that 2 year olds; 16 year olds are more developed that their younger siblings; 40 year olds are more developed than teens. Does that mean that the more developed we are, we get more rights, or the right to life? No. Environment: Does location determine one's worth? Walking across the street or rolling across the bed does not make you worth any more. If this is true, then a 6 inch journey down the birth canal does not determine worth either. Degree of Dependency: If viability makes us valuable human beings, then all those who depend on insulin or kidney medication are not valuable, and we may kill them." Until my opponent directly refutes each of those 4 points, I will hold my ground and assume that no counter argument can exist. Though it is true that all humans will lose their innocence at some point or another, we must look to what we know not what we can blindly assume. While the womb, every unborn child in innocent. Thus, we must not permit the killing of them. But if my opponent truly thinks that this is irrelevant and knows that I ignored this, they hopefully she will realize that it's not important since there need not be any discretion between innocent and uninnocent unborn children since they are only innocent while is the womb. Since this is a debate between two people who both place insurmountable importance on the dignity and value of human life, I do not need to explain this. If someone would like to debate on this topic, I'll think about it. Whole, distinct, and living human beings =/= fully developed human beings. I'm not show how one can derive the latter from the former. My opponent makes claims that the unborn have no emotion,no one cares about it, no life and, therefore, are not human. She makes these claims with no support. I'll give her one round to manufacture so support for these claims. I'm not going to argue words with no support because, well, saying the opposite would be just as valid. Regardless of the pain that a child may cause, killing it is the solution. I don't know what the solution is, but I know that killing he child is not part of that solution. Since I have proven by science that the unborn are human and have shown with philosophy that the unborn are human, I can infer that her solution to any human hardship is the killing of others. Though it is true that my opponent does not think that genetics and physicality is what makes humans humans, she provides no reason for these (no emotion, no one cares...but with no support). I urge her to answer why having emotion is essential to humans. After all, animals have emotions and yet most say that they are not humans. If others' care is what makes one a human, then I suppose that the nerd is no human either. Until she says why these aspects account for humanity, I can not refute those those points.