Abortion

It seems as though my opponent has completely ignored my call in the first round for him to state what meta-ethical viewpoint and specifically what normative ethical viewpoint he would be arguing from. This happends all too often in abortion debates. The opponent will assume a certain ethical system without mentioning what it is in the first round and then refuses to justify it. I hope that we will not run into this problem and we can get on the same page as to what meta or normative ethical viewpoint my opponent wiill be arguing from.My opponent provides a few slightly weird reasons for why he is against abortion. I will list them below and refute them.I think it is inhumane, mainly because it is the termination of life.I agree that abortion is the termination of a life. However we are not arguing over whether or not abortion is taking a life or not. We are arguing over whether or not abortion is wrong. Why is killing wrong? I will give my opponent the next round to clarify on this because we do have 5 rounds to kill.There are adoption centers worldwide, why not go that route, rather than abort an unborn child?My opponent here presupposes that killing an unborn child is wrong. Again, why is this wrong? Also, please do not argue from "common moral-sense". If you argue that something is wrong, bring justification.Also, while the fetus is unborn, I still believe that it can feel pain. You believe that it can feel pain or it does feel pain? If it does than bring evidence as to this assertion and then show why inflicting senseless pain is wrong. "My body my choice" A lot of people use this as well. It is your body. If you feel the pleasure, why not the pain?I don't really understand what my opponent is saying here. I assume he doesn't actually understand the libertarian concept of complete self ownership. If he would actually like to argue on whether a woman owns her body and anything in it, we can do that. However if I am simply misreading your intention than please correct me.Bringing a child into this earth is a purity within itself. Why taint purity with evil?Again, my opponent presupposes that 'evil' exists as a natural property. If he is to argue that abortion is evil than he should show why it is evil and then show why it being evil makes it wrong.Now as per the rules, I retain half of the burden of proof in this debate. I will show below why abortion can be a humane practice, even while denying any such thing as moral truths.Premise 1: A humane action entails showing compassion or benevolence.---Definition of humane.Premise 2: When calculating whether an act shows compassion or benevolence, one must take into account the consequences of that action and the motive of the agent performing it.Premise 3: A scenario can possibly arise where aborting a fetus shows compassion to the fetus(mercy killing). Ex. A child who the mother knows will be born with a genetic and terminal disease. In this scenario, the mother would be doing the compassionate thing by putting the fetus out before it can suffer.Conclusion 1: Abortion can be humane.--- From P1, 2, and 3.My opponent has certainly not upheld his BOP in this debate. Seeing as I have though I urge a Pro vote.