To answer your question before we continue. Murder is an intentional, unjustified killing of another human being by another.

So by your definition would killing a person whom is undocumented, and/or disfigured so that they cannot be recognized, not be murder? since if its recognition there are many contexts where it is not recognizable. And then we have to get to the fact that, this is not the standard definition of murder. US law says the definition is "the unlawful killing of a human being by another person without justification or excuse" the recognizability of the person has nothing to do with whether or not the act is murder. Also Let me challenge you on this. By what standard is killing just or unjust? Do you have a standard? if not does that not mean you are unfit to talk about this subject? since if this is just your personal moral opinion then who should care about what you have to say? If you do what is the basis of that standard?

The question is that belief morally justified? A fetus is the same species as adult humans are, so why would the stage of development mean that killing one is murder and the other one is not? Why does the development of the species mean killing it at one point is murder and at one point it is not? What justifies this? And who defines the stage where killing becomes murder?

So we define murder based on its ability to see, hear, and feel pain? Some people are blind, some people cant feel pain. does that mean if someone had the combination of those two traits killing them would be fine? And do we define person by stage of development? since if we want to get deep into it a heartbeat starts around 5 weeks, and the brain activity starts around the same time. So if we define it as alive then we should realistically move the ability to kill it only up to then right? Also you have left my primary questions unanswered. by what standard do we judge this? And who gets to define this? if you do are you saying your infallible? if someone else does what gives them that authority?

People. We have seen what my opponent as said and I will let you be the judge. but he has provided no ultimate authority or standard to judge this by. if Murder is just what you want to be or not to be, then why are we arguing about this in the first place? It is clear that a fetus is alive, no one disagree's with that. but if you say that even though it is a human(homo sapian) by definition we say killing is justified and not murder, that means you must provide the reason for it being justified and a authority for saying so. Since anyone can have an opinion, but if we have no ultimate standard it is meaningless and falls into subjectivity. His authority seams to be what the law says as those are what he has been using as definitions. He says the women has a choice but why? folks i suggest to you that he has no basis for his claims other then his own personal opinion. if we can change who counts as murder what good is that? Is the law the ultimate authority? I hope not as people get away with many evil things while staying within the law. Lets also remember that part of the constitution is that all have the right to life. so it seams to be contradictory that all does not include less developed persons. Lets also note many states have abortion Illegal. So because of this i ask you to judge this debate fairly. Thank you and goodnight.