Morality Debates: Abortion Edition

As this is my first, it's a very exciting experience for me. Also that he has the time to oppose me while he has a few other ongoing debates is truly great. I don't know how much focus it would take to uphold so many thoughts at once! I digress. My opponent comes forth with the reasonably well-opinionated basis that a developing fetus, or even an embryo, is a human being. As defined by The Free Dictionary, a human being is an entity that is ". .. any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage. " By deductive reasoning, these guidelines dictate that an unborn fetus is NOT a human being. Only by genetics can it be considered a member of the Homosapien race. By etymology of the word "homosapien", it includes the word "sapient", described by the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary as "[any being] possessing or expressing great sagacity. " By this definition, one cannot be considered human until they have reached the level of wisdom and knowledge, so, as guided by the meaning of the word, not even a toddler or even a teenager can be considered human until they have fully developed and have reached the mental capacity, hormonal balance and overall wisdom to be considered human. By extremely technical definition, I am not human. "Sure, there are instances where killing is justified (Ie: self-defense), but unless the unborn is directly threatening the mother's life (In which case the doctor can only save one or the other), then it is immoral to take the life of another person simply for the sake of one's personal convenience. Therein lies the heart of my argument: Abortion is prima facie immoral. " But what if the baby was indirectly threatened? Would you really want to force a misshapen not-even-human-yet to endure the hardships of permanent mental and physical mutations for its entire, horrible mistake of a life? "Though I sympathize with the woman's plight, the unborn child did not perpetrate the crime, he is simply a victim like the mother. " But the ending of his life before it has begun shall save him from being a victim! If he is never able to experience the pain accompanied by his deformities, then why force him into existence? After, and only after, the baby is born does its end become murder. Any time before its birth can honestly be considered an act of great justice. But that's just my morality speaking here. I shall now return to my original premise: abortion is justified. The basis of which I am branching my arguments outward from is the morality of abortion. Morality is generally accepted as a code of conduct established by society, which is established by the bible, which was supposedly established by the supernatural Sky-Wizard. However, this cannot be justified itself. Morality can only be built for each individual person by emotions and feelings accompanied by certain experiences they have that requires a decision, no matter how great or small. Law is one thing, but morality is another. If I say it is okay to kill someone who has stolen a piece of candy from my store because I have killed someone who stole candy from my store and enjoyed it and thought it was righteous, you cannot say that it is morally wrong for me. It would be very morally wrong for most people, but for a select few it is perfectly acceptable. So, I restate in inquiry, how can you say that abortion is morally wrong for me as an individual? _________________________________________________________________________________________________ . http://en.wikipedia.org... (I know, not a source, but I only used the first few sentences as an extended definition) . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... . http://www.merriam-webster.com...