Abortion is morally acceptable.

Opponent seems not to care about whether a human fetus is human or not, and so he throws aside that point and basically assumes that he or she is to make his argument. That's fine. But if the opponent backs up on this, I will ask him to make a decision, is an unborn human fetus human or not? And if not, please explain why. So, you are basically saying that because a human fetus does not feel pain when being aborted, it is therefore not considered murder, and if it is murder, you "do not consider the murder of a fetus though how horrific an act as considered by many of the society I share, to fall under the same moral restrictions and issues which the murder of an human or animal would adhere to." Nowadays in the U.S. a common means of execution is a lethal injection, where the person on death row will feel no pain except maybe the needle. And you can kill anybody this way, so it can still be a means of murder. Pain is not necessary for murder to be murder. It can be considered a more humane way of murder, but it is still murder. And also, while some aborted human fetuses have not yet developed a nervous system and some are treated with anesthesia, there are also countless cases when they do in fact feel pain [1][2]. Scientists are still unsure on this, but unsure is not a good stance to have when we are talking about if someone feels pain when being cut to pieces with a knife.[3] Secondly you make the argument that because human fetuses are not conscious and have no sentience, then they can not process their death with "mental or psychological agony." This not a very good argument at all. We know that humans can be murdered in there sleep (not conscious) by sticking a lethal injection into them. They die without metal agony at all, but it's still murder. Take a person who has lost all consciousness in their brain because they were born like that or were injured- if your injected them with a lethal injection, is that not wrong? You do not have to be conscious to be murdered. Here you state "the absence of sentience means it would not demonstrate the presence of a very critical concept which is present in humans." Highly illogical as we know that some disabled humans are not sentient, and yet they are still humans. The emotional connections you pull up are kind of bogus. Sure, the mother wouldn't care at all about an aborted fetus, but millions of people around the world [4]grieve for these humans who have no one to defend them. And if you believe in God, which I'm not sure of, you could say that he cares. However you can easily refute that if you want if you're an atheist, I'll understand. But to say no one cares that a human fetus is killed is simply wrong. You then go onto argue that if the unwanted child is born, it causes suffering to all. This is a very negative assumption. While it may be true that some families won't be able to afford the kid, they can still give him/her up for adoption. If he or she has birth defects, don't you think he or she should at least get a chance to cope with these problems? You pretend as if all the unwanted child will encounter is suffering, well everyone suffers. It's a part of life. And have you ever considered the positive possibilities that could've come about if an unwanted human had not been aborted. Perhaps that unwanted child could have discovered a cure for cancer, or ended world hunger, or found a way to travel through space. Unfortunately we will never know because that potential is thrown away from abortion. I'd also like to point out that my opponent is source spamming by posting a large number of sources on one point, which is kind of unnecessary. Think about that voters on the reliable sources voting part. Sources: 1. http://www.abortionfacts.com... 2.http://www.factcheck.org... 3.http://www.prochoice.com... 4.https://www.statista.com...