Abortion is Morally Justified

first you say "Who ever said life was the category we are basing this debate on? We kill many things that are alive, like plants. Would someone who picks a flower out from the ground, sniffs it, then throws it away be charged with murder? " life was the category of this debate round the second the fetus was destroyed in an abortion. and are you going to compare human life to a plant? if you were to do that you could say it is alright to kill any man just as it is to kill a plant. plants are not human. we shall not compare them to humans. next you say "Ridiculous statement. Not all forms of life are human beings. Is a dog a human being? Is a plant a human being? " again were talking about human embryo's. you can take it however you like, but remember this is a debate on human abortion. next you say "Perhaps, but I did not argue this. I argue that the fetus is not a person, i. e. hasn't a fully functioning brain (until it's self-aware). " yes i understand what you ere saying. the point of this statement was to show that a fetus and embryo ARE alive. but thoughts don't always make somebody alive. if they have the intent to grow and live, just like anyone else, it should be considered murder to end their life. should we go kill every stillborn out there because they simply have no thought reaction? Next you say "This can be broken down into two parts: 1. You are threatening my life by saying I'm not alive? Contradiction anyone? But also, I never used life as a criteria, so bad analogy there. 2. I never used the "quality of life" as an argument. So again, bad analogy. " 1. exactly your proving my point. it is a contradiction. one that should not be made, and me putting a gun to your head would be no different from an abortion. thankyou for expanding the true intent of my words. and again, life and quality of life became the issue the second the fetuses life became endagered by an abortion. 2. you didn't use the quality of life arg. i did. good analogy. next you say "Personhood. I doubt you have read my argument. " first of all you have one argument, that we have been debating this whole round. 'is the fetus a person? ' second of all i have given plenty good reasons to show a fetus is living. so all in all who is it really who has refused to read the others case? no offence mr. skeptic, but i don't think accusations like that are justified with out any evidence. so again i will say "who has the authority to decide when a human life begins? " Next you say "Irrelevant since I never used this as part of my argument; I'm well aware of the statistics. " sorry sir but it became relevant the second you used the resolution "abortion is morally justified, meaning you must prove it is justified in all cases. me seeing that you dropped this argument tells me that you agree with it, and that should be held on note for the voters. and i used it as part of MY arguement, so there should be some kind of obligation to refute it as i have refute any point you have made. but any ways one arguments dropped for me :) Conclusion: seeing as my opponent dropped two of my arguments, it must mean he agrees with both. (silence is compliance) and i would like the voters to remember that. also remember that i have argued EVERY point of his. again i would like to remind you that we are not comparing plants to human life, because you wouldn't kill a man just because it is alright to kill a plant. plant life is not relevant to abortion. however do keep in mind that however irrelevant it seems to me, i still argued it. MY opponent has not given me any info as to when a fetus can be concieved as actually living. so again the fetus is alive when it is concieved. me telling you your life is not important because you are not a live would be a contradiction just as my opponent pointed so gratefully for me. thankyou and i look forwar for the next round