Abortion should be illegal

FLO My opponent isn"t quite understanding my FLO argument. His rebuttals fall short. It is the last round, so he may not bring up new arguments, and if he does those arguments should be disregarded. Here is what my argument looked like for flo. 1Killing X is morally wrong because X has a future like ours of great value and killing X deprives X of that future. 2IF [Killing X is morally wrong because X has a future like ours of great value and killing X deprives X of that future. ] THEN [If X has a future of great value and killing X deprives X of that future, then killing X is morally wrong. ] Therefore 3If X has a future like ours of great value and killing X deprives X of that future, then killing X is immoral This argument was not offered a rebuttal but a counter argument which basically boils down to saying that if the FLO argument is correct than any form of birth control by extension would have to be immoral. However I pointed out that the FLO argument only pertains to an entity that exists. A sperm or an egg, do not have a future like ours, this is 2 separate life forms which have their own life cycles, separate from a human one. Now when the egg meets the sperm, it becomes an entity that has a future like ours. Same entity same future. A sperm or an egg is not a future human, but a sperm and an egg when combined is . Simple concept, I hope we are on the same page. My opponent completely drops this argument. By default I win this argument and by extension this debate, on this alone. If the FLO argument stands, and it does. It is a clear win for me. Racism Let me clear up this misconception that Sanger was against abortion. She is actually really popular in the pro-choice movement because of all the hard work she did to move the United States towards legalizing abortion. She did publish an article where she mentions preferring birth control to abortion. . https://www.nyu.edu... The goal of the speech was to legalize abortion. She used the famous argument that women are going to get abortions anyway, so it should be legalized so they can abort in a safe environment. That is an argument for a different debate, but the focus needs to be on the intent. The same paper that said she preferred birth control to abortion, is the same one petitioning the public to push for the legalization of abortion. My opponent says: "Up until now, abortion has not had an impact on US racial population distribution. Thus, abortion is not racist at its roots" However abortion has prevented the growth of the black population. My opponent has not contested my stats, but if they are to be believed the black population should be more than double what it is now. My stats show blacks are disproportionately effected, as many as 50% are killed before they are born. Planned Parenthood abortion clinics have a tendency to show up in black neighborhoods. I have quotes from the biggest name in pro choice, that show the intent of legalizing abortion. My opponent has failed to show a single reason why abortion should be legal. My opponent does mention that abortion was around 3,000 years and before M. Sanger was not used for racist reasons. I would point out that murder was around before Hitler, but him targeting certain minorities was a racist use of an old invention, just as abortion is a racist use of an unethical thing that has been around a while. CONCLUSION My opponent has completel fumbled against my FLO argument, and falls short of countering my argument that abortions as they are today are inherently racist.