Abortion is wrong and the murder of a life.

Abortion is wrong because it ends a human life—one that from conception is a unique individual with its own set of DNA and potential. If you choose to kill a fetus because of the irresponsible actions you made in the bedroom, then you should be prosecuted as a murderer. By aborting a baby, you are independently preventing the future of another human being—and that itself is cruel and inhumane.

From Oxford Definitions.

Abortion: the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. 

Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. 

Pro argued: "Abortion is wrong because it ends a human life - one that from conception is a unique individual with its own set of DNA and potential."

RESPONSE: Pro's assertion was "murder," so, he is talking from the Point of View of Law. In law, a fetus is not a person: fetus has no rights. Thus, abortion can not be classified as "murder" since murder is "unlawful" [premeditated] killing of one human. As such, Pro's entire case collapses. If pro wants to argue that abortion is murder, s/he first has to demonstrate that a person  and a fetus should legally considered the same.

Pro argued: "By aborting a baby, you are independently preventing the future of another human being—and that itself is cruel and inhumane."

RESPONSE: In abortion, what is aborted is not a baby but a fetus. And what is prevented is not future of a human being but a potential of fetus: it is no different than ejaculating outside the vagina: You are preventing potential of a sperm.

However, if pro wants to appeal biology and say "fetus, baby, adolescent etc are all phases of a humanship", biology does not have concept of murder: In biology, a human killing a human is no different than a lion killing a lion, a lion killing a deer, a human killing an insect - thus, nothing cruel and inhumane. Do we call lion killing a deer cruelty? In all aspects, Pro's case is based on misunderstandings and collapses immediately.

Earlier, in the debate description, Pro was arguing that people should be required to deal with the outcome of your poor decision making. This is a statement Pro himself will not adhere to. Quick demo: a man driving had an accident. It is a consequence of his own choice, own decision, own decision making. Do we have to reject him hospital because people should not be able to runaway from the consequences of their actions? Pro was saying "no one is required to have sex" - so is no one required to drive a car. Pro was also taking "by having sex you are taking risk of possible outcome" but so do you when you drive a car. Does that mean car drivers who had an accident should denied hospital and medical services?

Probably, as this site is like unmodered, uncontroleld and unadministered, this maybe the last debate I have had here.