Abortion can be demonstrated as immoral using Beauchamp's Principles

"The question here is actually at what point SHOULD an unborn child acquire the same rights as the mother. Responding with a statement of current legal standing is the naturalistic fallacy: That the way something "is" is thus how it "should be". Historically many actions that were legal (slavery, segregation) have rightly been abolished because they are, and have always been, unethical. "I would not agree that I implied the suggested fallacy, 24 weeks is the current ethically and morally accepted cut off point. It has been reached though much debate using these very principals. In it's self it is proof that there must be a balance, that of the rights of the potential child against the woman's rights to choice to be an ethically and morally sound cut off point. You would have been correct had the cut off time been reached by other means and not these principals. The comparison to slavery & segregation is to my mind spurious to say the least. Slavery as we know was the trade in autonomous persons, one of the key principals, an unborn child cannot be autonomous. It is also not a medical issue to which these principals primarily apply. "Now to the ethics of the point: when evaluating maleficence"My opponent states, which I agree, that "if the woman's life is in danger then both choices would lead to the end of a human life and are morally equivalent and it should be put at the digression of the woman which to choose in that situation. " However he then goes on to say that something HE deems less important should remove that option of choice. This clearly goes against the principal of non maleficence in that it will clearly cause the woman pain and suffering, also to which she has not given informed consent. The example you give regarding the murder of a co worker is again spurious, the co worker is an autonomous person. The worker & co worker have the same status. "I certainly do not advocate the removal of a woman's human right to self determination. ",yet you contradict yourself by saying: "if carrying to term threatens something less important/valuable than human life then abortion should be illegal. "This is contradictory to say the least, what choice to self determine exists if the option is removed? "Although the fetus is not exercising autonomy at the moment of abortion"This statement is a vital admission that a fetus to does not meet the criteria to apply these principals to it. The woman is the only person to meet the criteria, acting against her will is immoral and unethical. "All human beings, not just autonomy-exercising or adult ones, deserve the same respect and protection by the law. In this way the U. K. 's arbitrary 24 week distinction is a perfect example of an unjust law. That a fetus who is 23 weeks after conception, who is in every way indistinguishable from a fetus at 24 weeks, is somehow not even a person though its counterpart enjoys all the benefits of government protection is unjust to an absurd extent"I would agree with this, it is a odd situation to have an abortion at 23 weeks and in the next room people fighting to save a premature baby at 24 weeks. This is however not he majority by a long way, most abortions are within the first 10 weeks and very few premature babies survive birth at 24 weeks. The point has to be made ethically and morally that protects both parties. 24 weeks is based on the survival rate of babies below that age being extremely low and certainly not free of disability. "I would disagree that allowing the choice of abortion is the "only possible" way to create a fair and equal society. "The option to remove choice goes against all good medical ethics and morals as evidenced by these principals in my opinion, it is hard to see how you can use them to prove your resolution. I hand the debate back to my opponent to summarize his closing arguments.