Abortion should be legal.

I hope no bad feelings have been created between us because of this. My EvidencesPro said that he didn't refute my evidences because of two reasons. The first reason was because they were not reputable enough. Well, I would say that they are reputable enough. But anyways, let us just say that they are not reputable enough. Now, does this mean that my opponent doesn't even need to answer them? Of course not. When someone present evidences or arguments in an debate, then these evidences or arguments must be answered to. It doesn't matter if these evidences/arguments are reputable enough or not. Moreover, Pro has not explained why my evidences are not "reputable enough". Rather, he merely just claimed that they aren't reputable enough. Thus, Pro's first reason for not refuting my evidences, is a failure at best. The second reason was that the definition of the unborn provided all that needed to prove me wrong. As I clearly stated in my previous round, Pro's definition of the unborn only means that the unborn hasn't been born yet. In fact, a more accurate and precise definition of the unborn (as we clearly can see by the name "unborn" itself) is:"Not yet born: an unborn child. "[1] This definition of the unborn is from the same site in which Pro referenced his definition of the unborn. So why didn't Pro choose to use this definition instead of the vague definition "still to come in the future"? Well, probably because it would be much more harder for Pro to argue with the definition "Not yet born". Now, how did Pro respond to the fact that his definition of the unborn only means that it hasn't been born yet? Pro responded to this by saying: "A fetus is not a human until it exits its hosts genital. Not before. It could be anything in the womb. It could be an alien. As absurd as that may sound, and as factually inaccurate as that may be deemed, it is still not as absurd as what you claim. "This is surely much more absurd than what I have claimed. Everybody knows that it's a unborn baby inside the mother's womb, unlike an alien. As most people know, a women can go and get something called an "Ultrasound". This ultrasound gives you the ability to see your unborn child inside your stomach. It works by using high-frequency sound waves to echo, or bounce, off the body and create a picture. [2] When we use this ultrasound, we can clearly see that it is a human being inside the womb. It is therefore just completely false and wrong to say that it could be anything in the womb. Moreover, what is it that comes out of the mother when she gives birth? Isn't it a human being? Of course it is. So it was a human being which was inside the woman's womb. Pro's response to the fact that the definition of the unborn only means that it hasn't been born yet, is unreasonable and completely invalid. Concerning Pro's claim that a fetus is not a human until it exits its hosts genital, this is merely just an assumption. Pro doesn't give us any evidences as to why this is true. When you give a claim about something, then you need some evidences to back it up. How else are going to determine if this claim is true or false? It is evidences which gives us reasons to believe that a claim is true or false. As for Pro's claim that a fetus is not a human until it exits its hosts genital (whatever that means), no evidences have been given to support this claim. Thus, we have no reasons to believe that this claim is true. Compliance with philosophy and fact? Pro said: "Yes, as I have implied by way of my comment that you should surrender, providing the definition of "unborn" does, in fact, prove that the unborn isn't a human being in compliance with philosophy, and in compliance with fact. "This is also merely just an assumption. Pro doesn't explain how his definition of the "unborn" is in compliance with philosophy and fact; he simply just claims it. The resolution has been negated. Vote Con. _______Sources[1] . http://www.debate.org...[2] . http://kidshealth.org...