Endangered Species are protected more than Humans (A Debate about Abortion)

Again, I was hoping that in R2 you would make your argument clearer but clearly you did not forsee the problems addressing with abortion. If abortion was such an easy topic then society wouldn't have this problem to begin with. Basically if you are for abortion than you don't believe every human is equal...it is unfair that a baby must be killed. To start off, you used "then" wrong. It is not "than" but "then." In no way have you proven to me why a fetus (at any stage) is considered a human. From this statement alone, you are suggesting that it is wrong for me to kill mold, because they are composed of cells too. Additionally, if I was working with cells for research, it would be wrong for me to dispose of yeast cells because they are considered human. So if your argument was valid then I would agree, human life is not equal. I find my life as a person with mental capacity to be of higher value than an insect or an epithelial cell, whose only function in life is to sit there in media. But of course, what I'm doing is wrong. When it comes down, I should give the same respect to myself as I would to others, especially to that epithelial cell that is just sitting in my petri dish. Endangered species is not irrelevant because it is the topic to this debate! What we are talking about here is the society. The general people in America have put more money into killing babies than helping them, and they have put more money into protecting endangered species than into protecting babies. Let me ask you: which is more important, endangered animals who don't do anything important to help us, or humans? If you said animals DO help us and, besides, humans are over-populating, that would be equal to saying that not every human is special, am I not correct? Seems to me that you are getting confused between animal rights and abortion. I'm pretty sure these are separate topics. Philosophically though, you can address both issues with certain moral reasoning, but the argument you make does not hold any weight. Moreover, in R1, the first sentence you state that it was an abortion issue? So how is being an endangered species an abortion issue? Are you suggesting that animals have the same rights as humans? If so, I will refute that argument with social contract theory (I'm not gonna digress.)Your rhetoric is useless so I will fire back with another useless question, which do you like more, a lamp or a lamp post?I cannot fathom at what goes on in your head as you wrote your rebuttal. Please explain to me how animals helpping us and human overpopulation equals not every human is equal in terms of rights? In my opinion, abortion is permissible up to the third trimester of pregnancy. After this stage, it is believed that the fetus will have some normal brain and heart function. Before the 3rd trimester, you have a ball of cells. It literally cannot do anything but be a ball of cells. While I do agree with you that those cells are considered living, but the problem is that they have no reasoning, they cannot feel pain, they cannot be independent, their only function is to be a ball...of cells. Nothing else. Anwyays like I said earlier if you don't define your arguments clearly then it's a big waste of time. As you can see, I was right because we did not debate about anything. It really was me asking you to clarify your arguments and showing you why your reasoning was flawed.