Abortion in the 1st and 2nd trimester is immoral

An abortion might be ok?My opponents clarification still concedes the vital point I needed him to concede in this debate, he claims if the mother needs X and the fetus blocks X, abortion Y is ok. Basically1. X ---> B locked2. B ---> ok for Y3. Fetus ---> Dies4. Therefore X = YHe essentially conceded that a woman's right to treatment (many times life) trumps a fetus' right to live, he has not clarified this, he literally conceded that a woman's rights CAN trump a fetus' rights, hence he concedes a fetus is not the same as a human. My opponent now says abortion with rape is not ok, alright, you still essentially conceded above that a woman's right to medical treatment or life trumps a fetus', this means you no longer think the fetus' right to life is paramount over a woman's rights. I will bring forth the same quote again:"Anti-choicers say that a fetus has an inherent "right to life." But many of them support exceptions to a ban on abortion in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the woman's life, or even health. This clearly indicates that they believe the right to life of a fetus is negotiable, certainly not absolute or paramount. By compromising their "right to life" definition in order to accommodate a woman's rights, they inadvertently acknowledge that women's rights are more important than the "right to life" of fetuses. " [1] 1. Human v personMy opponent again brings forth the question begging response (a fallacy), and I think it is due to the fact he does not understand my argument, or the moral aspect of it. The question your argument begs: What properties to human fetus' have that that the entity has a right to life? He also ignores my counter example, my anencephalic fetus argument. If your argument stands to scrutiny, it also gives these deformed children the right to life, even though they die nearly after birth. I will quote:"Appeal to this criterion [fetus is biologically human]is, as we have seen, exposed to two main objections. First, there are excellent reasons for holding that the principle that all innocent members of the biologically defined species Homo sapiens have a right to life cannot be a basic moral principle: there must, for example, be some principle that does not refer to particular species that explains why members of other species - consider the imaginary case of ET - also have a right to life. But if the principle in question cannot be basic, then one needs to go back to the underlying, basic principle, and show that that principle supports the claim that humans have a right to life from conception onward. But this, of course, takes one back to the other criteria that we have been considering, and if none of those criteria is sound, then neither is the derived criterion that appeals to membership in the biologically defined species, Homo sapiens.The second objection is that the claim that all innocent members of the biologically defined species, Homo sapiens, have a right to life is exposed to counterexamples - such as the cases of anencephalic infants, and adults who have suffered whole brain death or upper brain death." [2]I used this argument last round, you never refuted it, hence the point stands as is. So essentially, my opponent goes on a spree claiming the mental state has nothing to do with a fetus being a human, but it does when speaking in a moral sense. For something to have worth, even in a moral sense, we must ask what qualities that a fetus have to deserve moral recognition? [2] My opponents only, repeat ONLY, argument is question begging and morally unsound. For something to have moral worth (like normal humans after birth) they have certain qualities they must have to have any moral worth. My opponent never answers the question: What qualities to fetus' have to acquire the right to life? This questioning crumbles his case in a moral perspective, as now his case cannot hold up in a morality debate such as this. Now, humans philosophy have NO right to life, persons do. Now, in a moral debate on abortion the question boils down, the side that answers this the best is the winner: "At what stage in the development of a human being does it acquire the property, or properties, in question?" [2] My opponent has not provided any criterion for a human, a human with rights that is, hence in a moral debate his arguments fail to find criteria and answer this question. As providing criteria last round would be unfair, as I would not be able to respond, he has now entered a corner: He has no definition or criteria for a right to life that actually works in a morality debate. Now, my criteria, and the lofgical criteria is:"Consciousness (of objects and events external and/or internal to the being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain;Reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems);Self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control);The capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics;The presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both. " [3] So, the question now is when does a fetus acquire these abilities? Third term? Birth? It is NOT first or second term, hence a fetus is actually NOT morally equivalent to a person, now your arguments fail in this debate to meet the even BOP. My arguments answer the core question, whereas yours do not. My opponent earlier states the social state does not matter in this debate, but he is actually dodging the question and putting a straw man. brain dead individual no longer has these rights to life, therefore it would be moral to kill him, under your argument even EVEN a dead man cannot be putout of his misery as every human has a right to life, it is simply illogical. My opponent said first paragraph skin =/= fetus, yet if you look at core pro life arguments it actually is relatable. yes, no typo, is, this quote paraphrases it perfectly, except uses dandruff:"If you point out that a fetus consists of human tissue and DNA, anti-choicers triumphantly claim you just conceded it's a human being. Now, a flake of dandruff from my head is human, but it is not a human being, and in this sense, neither is a zygote. Anti-choicers will respond that a fertilized egg is not like dandruff, because the fertilized egg consists of a unique set of chromosomes that makes it a separate human being. But with cloning, a cell from my dandruff is enough to create a new human being." [1]So the skin rule applies, as if you look at the core arguments you are hinting at is that skin is now a human, once again, your argunments are illogical. CONCLUSION:I have refuted my opponents case thoroughly using valid arguments and moral philosophies. My opponent fails to answer the core question of the debate, and give criteria, and when a human gains the right to life, and his arguments are proven illogical and should not be accepted. The criteria for human-hood: (1) consciousness(2) the capacity to reason(3) self-motivated activity(4) the capacity to communicate messages,(5) thy presence of self-concepts. [3]A fetus does not have this, hence a fetus is not morally equivalent. ALSO, my opponent above conceded that a woman's right can trump abortion in some cases, he concedes a fetus' rights are less then a woman's, a right to life is no longer paramount! Even in his argumentation! My opponent fails to prove me wrong and prove his case, VOTE CON_____________[1] http://www.abortionaccess.info...[2] http://spot.colorado.edu...[3] http://instruct.westvalley.edu...