is abortion moral

Before I begin, I ask that Con use spell check and check for proper spelling and grammar. Your argument is extremely hard to read and understand.Now,Rebuttals:"But I believe because I made the topic its called IS ABORTION MORAL killing helpless humans is not and should not be called moral so all your rubbish about killing babies because they would grow up in poor and impoverished homes which is bad but so is killing defenceless babies who can't defend themselves"Pro is making a gigantic assumption. He is assuming that because I believe abortion is moral, that I believe infanticide is moral. Either that, or he believes fetuses are babies. I already disproved that in Round One, but I guess I can repeat the quote I posted earlier:"Without verbal reports and direct access to the mind of a fetus, inferences about what fetuses are able to experience depend on the interpretation of secondary evidence. As discussed, neuroanatomical pathways necessary for processing pain, similar to those observed in adults and older children, could be in place by 23 weeks' gestation. The stereotypical hormonal stress response of adults or older infants, of about 18 months onwards, reporting pain is observable in fetuses at 18 weeks' gestation. Behavioural reactions and brain haemodynamic responses to noxious stimuli, comparable to adults or older infants, occur by 26 weeks' gestation. These and other observations are taken to suggest that the fetal mind can support an experience of pain from at least 26 weeks' gestation."Unless Con has a source proving fetuses are, in fact, conscious and can feel pain, I win this point. My argument here still stands. Since fetuses can't feel pain, it is morally justifiable to terminate a fetus early on in order to prevent pain after it is born. "which we can stop by not treating sex as a health issue but something that you should not do until you get married and you don't have to intrude on people rights but change public opinion, by the way, your stats agree with my last point if we promote safe sex contraceptives are very cheap and if you want to have sex take precautions. If everyone was careful we could half all unwanted births."I fail to see how this is relevant. On the off chance that your ability to listen to reasoned is not impaired debateI object to this attack on me. This is an ad hominem logical fallacy. That might help to change your opinion to your point about fetuses not being human two human people had sexual intercourse to produce this child so it would be denying a science fact that this is not human offspring this is a quote from your last post on this debateWhile this is hard to understand, I believe Con is saying that because two humans were required to produce a fetus, it is therefore human and should have all the rights of a human. I already responded to this in my Round One argument. I compared Con saying a fetus is a human to an egg being a full grown chicken. Con conveniently drops this.A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance. does this mean that my friend with a speech disability is less human than me because he has this problem he still identifies as human what about someone who is deformed who doesn't have an upright stance by your definition this excludes two fully human beings? do you count them by your definition if you do you are proving your definition wrong can you please answer. because that is what your definition says and I also like how you mention the word child in your definition.No, clearly a disabled person is clearly a human being. They are just disabled. Extension:Con makes several assumptions in their argument, specifically that a fetus is a human being. Pro rejects this assumption, and requests Con provide evidence that a fetus is equal to a human being. Pro has provided an example of how fetuses can't feel pain, automatically making them less then human beings. Fetuses also can't think, or live independently. Nor can they stand upright, talk, have a personality, cry, laugh, walk, or any other number of human characteristics. The key part of that is "live independently". A fetus is completely dependent on the mother. It gets all of its nutrients through the umbilical cord; if it is cut, the fetus dies. True human beings are independent. While we may have various aids to help us survive, we are not connected to another person, therefore we are independent human beings. Con will need to prove, with substantial scientific evidence, that fetuses are human beings, therefore we should consider the termination of them murder.Pro extends their argument from Round One, that since fetuses can't feel pain, nor are they human beings, it is morally justifiable to abort a fetus if said abortion will reduce pain to the mother, father, child, or anyone else affected by the pregnancy.Con also drops one of my arguments - That adoption is not a reasonable solution to abortion, if abortions are banned.So, to conclude, Con has multiple tasks ahead of them. They will need to respond to their point about adoption, specifically my rebuttal to it. But most of all, Con will need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that a fetus is in fact a human being. This is impossible for Con to do, however, as all modern medical research proves fetuses are not human beings. Because of that, Pro should win the debate, as Pro points out that abortions are painless to the fetus, as it can't even feel pain, and abortions are usually done to prevent pain after birth. Therefore, abortion is morally good.