Abortion should be banned

Alright, thanks for clarifying about the observation. Thats fine. 1. Murder is indeed a legal term defined as killing another human. My argument is that a fetus is not a human, as you even said yourself that it is only a "potential for humanity". She says that a sperm has no potential to become a human. Um, what? She makes all these contrasts as to say that a sperm an fetus are vastly different. An individual sperm does have a low probability of becoming a human. Collectively though, there is a significant chance. One "deposit" typically has a 25% chance of becoming fertilized. So to deny that sperm cannot become a human is ridiculous. A sperm makes up the fetus which makes up the human, so again they are comparable. For readers I will just give a quick reminder; my point was that we consider it acceptable to prevent sperm from becoming a human, which is not altogether different from doing the same for a fetus. @ Mentally challenged: When I say "function independently", I mean that if we leave it disconnected from outside forces it can survive. If we put a challenged person in an empty room, they will live. If we do the same to a fetus, it will not. The point here is that the 2 are not comparable in regards to functioning because one is dependent on other things to survive. "Humans" do not do this. She then says that a fetus isnt undeveloped, it is just uncompiled. She uses an example of cutting your skin as decompiling cells. This example will turn against her. If a piece of skin is scraped off, or "decompiled", the we really dont care what happens to it afterwards. Nobody will tell me its wrong to leave it lying on the ground or anything like that. Since a fetus is uncompiled cells just as she says skin is, we apply that logic to abortion to realize that getting rid of uncompiled cells isn't wrong in the slightest. Furthermore, whether the fetus is undeveloped on uncompiled matters little. It it still unlike live humans, who are neither. 2. She continues to compare fetuses to mentally challenged people. These people are 1. Alive, 2. Survive independently (Empty Room example), and 3. Regardless of their condition, still have much greater brain activity than a fetus, which has none. The 2 are vastly different, so lets not compare them. Toddlers are fully alive human beings, fetuses are not. Again not comparable. Abortion is not just under the pretense of "they cant make their own decisions". I have given several reasons. Lack of independent functioning, compiled cells, brain activity, and the ability to make decisions. Forced beliefs: Sure, maybe two or three people in the world think theft is fine. But the overwhelming majority knows that it is wrong. When at least 99% of people acknowledge that stealing is bad and hurts people, its obviously okay to keep it illegal. This is in contrast to abortion, which is a 50/50 issue, thus there's no need to ban it universally. Hardcore drugs do have supporters for both side on legalization. They are still illegal because of the fear of what might happen if made legal, some argue that doing so would create negative impacts on society. Contrary to abortion which does not do so. Guns also directly harm fully alive people. Gay marriage has no real impacts and is a 50/50 issue. I believe that since it is similar to abortion in this regard, it should stay legal. Death penalty exists for justice reasons. The religious wars argument is about wars being started because people were trying to force their religious beliefs onto other people. Ex: The Crusades, Taiping Rebellion, Thirty Years War. We all know this is ridiculous and a tragedy. This is the same as banning abortion, because doing so forces the pro-lifers beliefs on everybody else, which should also be considered ridiculous. "I believe that's like saying "I won't convince you to smoke cigarettes if you don't convince me to stop"." That quote-within-a-quote actually makes sense. I dont support smoking, but it would definitely be wrong to ban it. So now we get to the "what could have been" argument. She basically just gives more examples of aborted fetuses being good people, which I have alread refuted. The only thing she said against that refute was that even if the aborted fetus would have been a bad person they could have done some good. Again, it works both ways. A generally good or nice person can get in an accident and hurt somebody. Or, they could just be a bad person and never do any good at all. Look, this argument is just so open-ended and theory based; we can make all these predictions we want about "what could have been", but in reality we have no idea. Lets get away from this theory based argument and move onto real life implications. And speak of the devil, thats what her last argument is. "Many woman who get an abortion will experience severe stress afterwards and sometimes worse." First off, no source or examples is given of this. Please disregard any she gives in the final round because I would not have an opportunity to refute its methods of research or its findings in general. Secondly, in the event this actually does happen, the only thing that indicates is that the woman obviously was not decisive or well informed enough to make the decision and as such, regretted it. Thats no reason to ban abortion, rather we should encourage more knowledge to be given on the issue. Final point: My opponent is the pro side of a resolution that advocates a change in the status quo. This means she is obligated (burden of proof) to give reasons as to why we should ban abortion. She has not done so in this entire debate. All she has done is attack my arguments while giving none of her own. She has never even said anywhere that abortion should be banned. So since I have given arguments as to why abortion should stay and she has not given any as to why it should not, I urge a con vote. Many thanks to Darceem for finishing.