Abortion is always immoral

I haven't fully mended, but seeing as you've provided an in depth response to my argument, I feel its necessary to defend my argument, and refute yours. First, I would like to address the Pros notion of premise 3,4&5 being contradictory. It must be noted that I've only specified that: "prem4: A moral action may be deemed as "evil" if it is to the detriment of an individual or society" is a necessary statement to make to fully encompass both sides of morality as it pertains the argument. I must stress that the two, in this scenario aren't design to be mutually exclusive. That said, I would like to, as Pro pointed out, adopt the utilitarian aspect of things. As I've previously said, the needs of the masses outweigh the needs of the few. If ending one life is to the betterment of a collective, it ought to be considered the more moral choice. Within that, pro asks as to why it needs to be an unborn life as opposed to what some may term as degenerates. As a response to that, I would argue that it makes no difference. As I've pointed out, all human life ought to be weighed equally. Now, having established that, I would like to add that that statement in of itself DOES NOT necessarily contradict my original statement. In this hypothetical instance, it is only necessary that a life be taken. If that life happened to be an unborn childs, so be it. Again, the only thing that I, as a con, have the burden of proving is that: in some instance, no matter how wild or far fetched the scenario, it is sometimes moral to abort. On that note, I would like to change the pace of my argument and move from generalized statements to a more concrete example as to where abortion may be the most moral outcome. While browsing through some old medical case files, I came across a file of a pregnant woman who was afflicted by hemophilia. Being a generally unwell human, she started to go into labor early into the second trimester. At this point, doctors told her that both she and her child would die if she attempted to go through the delivery procedures. Essentially, it was either abort the child and live, undergo a procedure that would claim both the mother as well as the child's lives. In this no win scenario, it is clear to see that abortion is both the best and most moral option. Without going into more detail, I can come up with several other similar scenarios involving rape, and both maternal/child death and general well being hangs on the unfortunate procedure of abortion. I would also like to address Pros statement involving the killing of, in this instance, eight people versus the rape of an infant. I would never go so far as to say that the rape of an infant is a positive action in any light. That being said, in the proposed scenario, what IS the most moral action? Can Pro honestly argue that the loss of 8 lives (in this scenario) is of lesser value than the rape of an infant? Suppose that eight was replace by 8 billion. Do the amount of people involved and influenced by the decisions effect the moral value? Pro argues it doesn't. I, on the other hand, would with great despondency, end one life to save 8 billion. I will concede that fully adopting a utilitarian society may open up life to what an individual may consider "unspeakable horrors". That being said, life as it currently is is also subject to unspeakable horrors. That fact doesn't change. The difference is, utilitarian may commit unspeakable horrors in the name of progress, and betterment for future people, whereas today, unspeakable horrors are committed in a chaotic manner with no promise of betterment or positive change.