Abortion is Morally Right

My opponents position has fallen apart, there's really nothing to grip onto at this point.She has agreed that "Any organism that doesn't have emotions or sentience at the present moment can be destroyed."She says that this reasoning doesn't apply to a sleeping person because of REM sleep, and then doesn't address the 80% of the time that a person is sleeping and not in REM! (1)By my opponents own reasoning not only is it acceptable to kill a person in their sleep, but a person actually ceases to be human while sleeping. (As long as their not dreaming.)" 'Where does this fetus become human?'[Me] At about week 6, the baby starts to give off brainwaves, meaning it can think. After this the baby starts to develop the ability to move, smile, hiccup, dream, etc. So in my opinion, the baby becomes 'human' on the 6th week. I believe abortions must be, and can be, done before then."I had to sit here for a while just to figure out where to begin, so I decided to make a list of what's wrong with this paragraph.1.) Not only is she asserting a definition of human that's completely un-backed by any scientific evidence (she admits its just her "opinion"), but she actually changed the definition that she was using before from A.) A human is an entity with sentience and emotions to B.) A human is an entity with brainwaves.2.) Her old definition was bad, but her new definition encompasses most of the animal kingdom! So most animals are "human"? I guess so.3.) She says that an abortion "must be" done before a baby becomes a fetus. I assume she doesn't mean that.4.) She doesn't recognize the fact that there is no sudden change from an embryo to a fetus, and therefore the problem of accidentally killing what she refers to as "human".5.) She's no longer arguing that "Abortion is Morally Right". She's arguing that abortion is morally acceptable before 6 weeks but from 6 weeks to birth it isn't."my opponent also misses the stage sperm and egg. Some forms of birth control use 'spermicide' that kills sperm. Despite the fact that sperm have the capacity to become a baby, no sane person that calls that murder and says sperm need rights, too. Thus, capacity is irrelevant to the debate." -OpponentHer conclusion doesn't follow from what she argued. Even if it was true that sperm cells have the capacity to become human doesn't mean the capacity for consciousness is irrelevant to this debate.Sperm is not a human, and neither is an egg. A fertalized egg is a human being with the capacity for sentience (In principle). I did not "miss" the sperm or the egg. They were not part of the developmental stages of a Human because they are not human. In the farmer situation, I would definitely be OK with being paid the same value in potatoes. In the civilization example, if the larger population was saved because the other civilization died, I’d be OK with that, too. Also, if the new civilization was more intelligent and more productive, I agree with swiping out the other one. However, this claim is a bit irrelevant because not all fetuses will be aborted. The ones whose parents love them and think of them as their own would be brought into the world."-Opponent Volume, not "value". My opponent still isn't grasping the problem. There's no absolute value for people. There is no intrinsic value to them. No two are the same. Each one is as fundamentally different as the difference between a photon and a polar bear.It's not logically or morally sound to trade one person or group of people for another. That is the property of sentience that no other known creature or process possesses. I've enjoyed this debate. Thanks for reading, please post the reasons for your votes either way, I'm always interested in reading them.1: http://www.webmd.com...