Abortion should be banned.

Apologies for my egregious lack of conduct, give conduct to Con. However I will conclude why I win the debate." He keeps mentioning that a fetus is a human, however I pointed out on multiple occasions that this is not what I am arguing against."This seems to be the most important thing Con does not address. We both agree the fetus is a human;that's a biological fact. That is the only important thing in this debate: Abortion should be banned because it deprives someone of a human life. Life is an inalienable right, the one you cannot live without, the prerequisite to all. To take it away from innocents is morally wrong. THIS IS THE ONLY IMPORTANT PART ABOUT THE DEBATE. All innocent humans deserve the right to live. Convenience or "choice" does not excuse this. "Imagine that a hiker is at a fork in the road and must choose to go right or left. In this situation, the hiker ends up choosing to go left because the left path is more scenic. But little does the hiker know there is a landmine on the left trail which will kill the hiker if he takes that path. The hiker's "actual" desire was to go left, but his "ideal" desire was to go right and not hit the landmine. If this particular hiker knew about the landmine, he would certainly have gone right. Likewise, the suicidal person might have an "actual" desire to not go on living, but if this person was in a situation with better circumstances, his "ideal" desire would be to live."Con attempts to excuse killing by bringing up the Desire View of life, that life is only important if you desire to keep living, and since the fetus has no brain waves up to a certain point it desires nothing and therefore shouldn't live if the mother chooses. However, he brings up "actual desire" and "ideal desire". This is self-refuting, as the fetus's actual desire is to keep living. All beings desire to live on. The ideal desire of the fetus is to keep living, which refutes Con's entire argument, as it may not have an actual desire but ideally it would want to live. Just because something is incapable of thinking, does not make it okay to kill it. "My opponent points out that an abortion is the intentional killing of a being, whilst not splitting totipotent cells is letting nature take its natural course. He believes that this makes a difference in moral evaluation, so what I will argue for is that murder and omitted aid do not make an evaluative difference that would justify calling the first a horrible crime and the latter a permissible course of action."Con argues against FLO by saying that the future of some cells is equal to the future of WHAT IS ALREADY A HUMAN, as conceded by Con. The future of something not yet human should not be weighed in the round. If a murderer kills a women, the prosecution will not charge the killer for 10 charges of murder if the women could have POTENTIALLY had ten kids. Notice the difference here: future of something not yet human and a human are completely different.Con doesn't refute that comatose humans have no desires at the time. Although he may claim "ideal desire", remember that a fetus's ideal desire would be to live also even if they have no thoughtsConclusion Con's list of reasons excusing killing humans falls short. Give conduct point to Con because my FF.But remember, a human is a human.