Abortion is wrong

Con fails to recognize that his argument about "sled" is irrelevant. I have stated many times that I do not dispute that. I am not going to refute that fetuses are genetically and physically human. That does not mean that they take priority over all other humans though. I have explained that the mother has priority because he life could be taken or ruined because of the baby, and she already has a life, people who care about her, and other characteristics about her that make her truly human. The baby lacks these important characteristics. What gives someone importance isn't their species, but their importance to others. We could suddenly decide that all cats should be saved because they are cats. Does that makes any sense? Why is one species more important than another? I say they aren't. If you killed my cat I would be more upset than if you killed someone I never knew. It is sad, but true. No one knows this baby, no one cares about this baby. People care about the mother. Therefore, she should get the priority. If your cat was going to be hurt by a pregnancy and could stop it, would you say "Oh we can't kill it because it is a cat!"? No! The cat you've loved for a long time would take priority! Con has basically proved that the fetus is human and does not deserved to be killed because of "sled". I agree, those are not the reason the fetus should be killed. This does not mean that the fetus should not be aborted for other reasons which I have given and that Con has decided not to refute. The idea that fetuses should not be killed because we are human is rather idiotic. In reality, it would be best for most species and other people of there were less humans. Con has asserted that "fetuses should not be killed because they are human", but I can find no logical reason to support this. "Sled" only proves that the fetus is human and should not be killed for the four reasons it gives, however this does not support Con's argument, nor does it refute other arguments made for abortion being necessary. "Though it is true that all humans will lose their innocence at some point or another, we must look to what we know not what we can blindly assume. While the womb, every unborn child in innocent. Thus, we must not permit the killing of them. But if my opponent truly thinks that this is irrelevant and knows that I ignored this, they hopefully she will realize that it's not important since there need not be any discretion between innocent and uninnocent unborn children since they are only innocent while is the womb."- I don't know what Con thinks I am blindly assuming, but we do know that every fetus who grows into a fully developed human will lose its innocence, hurt others, and possibly do very horrible things. The mother was also innocent in the womb. Therefore, the fact that it is innocent now has no weight because all humans were innocent at some point. Yet, Con would probably not so vehemently oppose the killing of murders. But they were innocent in the womb too! Just because the fetus is innocent does not give it priority over the mother. "My opponent makes claims that the unborn have no emotion,no one cares about it, no life and, therefore, are not human. She makes these claims with no support. I'll give her one round to manufacture so support for these claims. I'm not going to argue words with no support because, well, saying the opposite would be just as valid."- Can you show that a fetus has emotion? I have never once seen any evidence of this. I think that if the fetus is being aborted that we can logically assume that people do not care about it very much or at least not as much as the mother. Con likes to make excuses not to refute my claims. "Though it is true that my opponent does not think that genetics and physicality is what makes humans humans, she provides no reason for these (no emotion, no one cares...but with no support). I urge her to answer why having emotion is essential to humans. After all, animals have emotions and yet most say that they are not humans. If others' care is what makes one a human, then I suppose that the nerd is no human either. Until she says why these aspects account for humanity, I can not refute those points."- I never said a fetus isn't human. I said that it doesn't have the characteristics that make it different from other humans and more than just a body. I did not say that emotions are the only characteristic they are lacking. Other animals lack the intensity of emotions that humans do. Other animals do not care for each other or look out for each other as humans do. They don't have as unique personalities as humans. They cannot comprehend the complex things humans do or accomplish anything close to what humans can. At this point the fetus is not different from any other living organism because it does not have any of the things I have just mentioned. The mother on the other hand does possess these things. Con's assertion about a nerd is quite dumb. A nerd has friends, parents, maybe even a girlfriend or boyfriend. Those are people who care about it. Not to mention it will probably achieve great things. Con has repeatedly avoided refuting my claims by saying "She has no evidence". Most of this debate is philosophy and philosophy cannot have evidence to back it up because it is just a way of thinking. Con's philosophical argument is that "fetuses shouldn't be killed because they are humans". Well I have given much evidence that that claim makes no sense and has no weight, and provided reasons why the mother should take priority. Con, please stop evading refuting my claims.