Abortion before the end of the second trimester is murder

My definitions are sourced, and his definition of murder also works for the definition of manslaughter [1] (specifically, manslaughter is not premeditated, while murder is, and his definition does not include premeditation at all, so under his definition, manslaughter could be murder, when they are in fact separate terms). Thus, his definition is not as specific as my definition for murder, so my definitions shall be used for the debate. Furthermore, I use the noun definitions of murder and abortion, while he uses the noun definition for abortion and the verb definition for murder. The title uses them in the noun form (as opposed to it saying "To abort before the end of the second trimester is to murder, which is the verb form). My definitions are consistent, and thus they should be used. I have shown my definitions to be more appropriate for this debate, and they shall be used for the remainder of it, especially because Pro has not shown how my definitions are inappropriate in the only round where, according to the rules, he was allowed to do so. I am not breaking the rules by posting this, because this is a clarification necessary for the rest of the debate, and it is something that I could not respond to in Round One. Even though I have denied Pro's definitions, I believe my arguments will still work under his definitions. Now, this round deals with our main arguments. I remind my opponent that he is not allowed to respond to my arguments until the third round, where I will address his as well. He can only state his main argument in this round. Ultimately, I will prove that abortion is not the killing of an innocent human being, because the embryo/fetus is not a human being. I will remind you that murder is the killing of a human being, under both of our definitions, even though his is irrelevant. So, if I can prove that an embryo/fetus is not a human being, then abortion before the end of the second trimester is not murder. A human being is an organism [2], which is defined as: "An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal" [3]. So, if an embryo is not an organism, it is not a human being. Individuality is required for something to be considered an organism under organism's scientifically accepted definition. An embryo is not an organism, because it is not an individual. An individual is defined as: "A single, separate organism (animal or plant) distinguished from others of a same kind" [4]. Allow me to show you how it is not an individual. An embryo does not fall under this scientifically accepted definition of an individual, because it is not able to be separated from the mother it resides in without dying. In other words, its existence as life is dependent upon it being attached to the mother. It is not "separate," as the definition of individual requires. I do not expect my opponent to deny the fact that a fetus is attached to the mother, but I have cited this fact just in case [5]. For a fetus to be considered a human being, it must be an organism. For it to be considered an organism, it must have individuality, which it does not, because it is unable to survive without being attached to the mother. Now, one may argue that even if the fetus is dependent upon the mother, so is a person hooked up to an IV machine dependent upon the IV machine; thus, shouldn't a person hooked up to an IV machine be not considered a human being as well? No. To be dependent upon the mother is the fetus in its natural state, as opposed to someone hooked up on an IV machine. If whatever incident that caused a person to be hooked up to an IV machine did not happen, then the person would be considered a human being. Thus, he or she should still be considered a human being despite the handicaps, because what happened to him or her was an irregular occurrence. A normal fetus on the other hand has no "incident" happen to them; no defect is present, only natural processes, yet they remain dependent. If you keep the natural processes intact for both the fetus and the human, the human being would still be considered an individual, while the fetus would not. In principle, a person attached to an IV machine is still a human being; a fetus in principle is not a human being. I have shown how abortion before the end of the second trimester is not murder because murder involves killing a human being, which a fetus is not. According to the rules, my opponent has the burden of showing that abortion is murder in his main argument; he cannot directly respond to my arguments in round two, although his arguments can certainly contradict mine. He just cannot reference them directly. I thank my opponent for accepting the debate and I wish him luck. [1]http://www.google.com... [2]http://www.project2061.org... [3]http://www.biology-online.org... [4]http://www.biology-online.org... [5]http://indianapublicmedia.org...