Abortion is generally an immoral act

I do not want this to be a semantical war much like you don't so let's not argue definitions xD I would like to suggest what the voters should look for and vote upon: Ignoring the one exception about a mother's life being in danger, my opponent must show that all other instances of abortion are morally wrong. That is his burden. I must either get him to concede that there are good exceptions (I will not use the one he proposed for that would be cheap) and/or prove that there are good reasons. If I can do what was previously said I should win, if not, my opponent wins. Rebuttal: 1: It is true that fetus' are human but a human does not necessarily mean a person. I would define a human as having two pairs of 23 chromosomes. This is what a human is. A person is different however. A person is an independent individual hence a fetus is not a person. A fetus relies on it's mother meaning it is not independent ergo it is not a person. For example, the hair follicles on your head are humans. They have all your DNA but they are not people. So every time one pulls out a piece of ones hair they are "killing" a human yet they have no moral qualms about that so why should anyone of any qualms regarding abortion? A hair follicle is the same as a zygote except that a zygote can grow. Nothing more. Why would I argue size? The level of development is somewhat not important in this debate (so far at least) Why would I argue environment? //The unborn are dependent upon the mother to live, but so are toddlers and infants. // This is false. An infant can be cared for by someone else and the mother need not be involved. A fetus MUST remain attached to the mother. A fetus and an infant are two incomparable things. //Adults are dependent on their jobs to survive// False. An adult can survive without a job, it is just harder. But think about it, what have homo-sapiens, homo-erectus ect been doing before the advent of modern society? Surviving without jobs! This argument falls. 2: Humans do not. People do. As previously stated, a hair follicle is a human, not a person. That hair follicle does not have a right to life but if it were a person it would. //"Person" is simply a legal term that allows legal discrimination.// This is not true in the least. A person is what separates a hunk of DNA (a hair follicle) from a walking talking sentient being. It has nothing to do with being a way to legally discriminate. Women and blacks and Jews were still people though. Discrimination has nothing to do with someone not being a person, it has to do with hatred. The unborn are not people and thus there should be no moral qualms regarding aborting them. If you have a moral qualm regarding that I dare say you cannot use a hair brush, or soap, or a towel, or anti-bacterial soap, ectectect... My argument (if this goes through out the round I win): If a women is raped and is impregnated she has the right to choose. Take for example that said women is a teenage girl of the age of 15. She is unfit to be a mother and the likely hood of her dropping out of school increases, she will rely on public money and will develop health problems. But let's add more. Say the female who was rapped grew up in poverty and knew that if she had the child the child would either be abused or could not live a happy life? She would be doing the child a favor. What must be done for my opponent to win: 1: Defend his points 2: Prove my point wrong What he can't do: 1: Say that my point falls outside the generally category. I'm not saying he will but if he does that is unfair since there is no bright line for what is inside and outside the generally category. What I must do to win: 1: Defeat my opponent's points OR 2: Extend my argument across the debate.