Abortion before the end of the second trimester is murder

Okay. I will do my best to respond to his argument, but honestly, there is not much to respond to. His statistics are from a biased source, and are technically incorrect under my argument that a fetus is not a human being, a thus certainly not a baby, as the source likes to refer fetuses as. You really can't abort babies; that would be infanticide, not abortion. "Is it any different if I killed you now than if I killed you as a fetus. " Yes, yes there is. As a fetus, I am unable to value my own existence. Now, I value my existence. So, yes, there is a difference. "If you kill a fetus you take the life they will have. " The fetus, even without being aborted, is not guaranteed their life until they are actually born healthy. So by aborting them, you may not be taking the life they will have. Something else may happen to them, like a miscarriage. But either way, that does not make it murder. I have shown how a fetus is not a human being; the act of an abortion is not taking a human being's life. "Would you want to be killed as a fetus because your mother didn't want you or wasn't able to care for you? " As a fetus, I would be unable to "want" or "not want" to be killed in the first place. Since I'm alive now, I value my life, but as a fetus, I am unable to value my life. But a fetus is not a human being; it has the possibility to develop into a human being if anything, but killing a possibility for a human being is not murder. An individual sperm has the possibility to develop into a baby as well, but male masturbation is not considered murder even by most Pro-life standards. Even if a sperm needs a female's egg to make life, so does a fetus need a woman's body to develop into a life. "It is a moral question in my opinion. " It certainly is a moral question. It is very philosophical in nature. That said, philosophy is based off of reality, and to use scientific definitions to back up one's philosophy is not only a good idea but also required to be taken seriously, since science is an observation of reality. And it wasn't even like I rigged the definitions in my favor either; my arguments could work under your provided definitions, and the ones I provided in Round Two that I needed for my argument were scientifically based and not nitpicked from various sources. You, on the other hand, have only given emotional appeals with no evidence to back them up. Just because a question is a moral question doesn't mean that you can use your emotions to answer it. Rather, you should look at the evidence, which exists in statistics, definitions, scientific law, etc. , to see which answer to this moral question is correct. I have provided biology facts and scientific definitions, along with the reasoning to apply the facts and definitions with each other, to prove my case correct. My opponent has not done this in his main argument. His main argument does not prove the notion that abortion before the second trimester is murder. For this reason, you should vote Con. Now, I will remind my opponent that in the third round he cannot state any new arguments; all he can do is rebut to the arguments I made in round two, as I have just done here with his arguments from round two. He cannot reply to the arguments I just made here in round three either, since I am unable to reply to his rebuttals made this round. All of this is in the rules.