Abortion can be demonstrated as immoral using Beauchamp's Principles

Beauchamp's Four Principles are the groundwork for modern Medical Ethics and should be investigated in the context of a modern ethical dilemma such as Abortion. The greatest advantage of Beauchamp's Principles however is that opponents don't need to be members of the same religion as these principles were selected as universally valid norms, that is principle that everyone can agree upon. Brief description here: http://www.ukcen.net... My argument here is that Abortion does not need religious grounds to be soundly condemned and justly banned. This can be done with universally accepted concepts of morality and legality. I am primarily interested in an opponent with the opinion that Abortion can not be condemned using Beauchamp's Principles. In this argument I will consider Non-maleficence, Autonomy, and Justice. 1) Non-maleficence - "Fetus" refers to a stage of development in human life. A fetus is the same organism as the neonate, the infant, the adolescent, and the adult. The fetus is human (possessing human DNA), the fetus is alive (metabolizing nutrients and maintaining homeostasis), and the fetus is an individual (possessing its own genetic code and its own body, though dependent on the mother's). Abortion kills this living human individual, depriving it of life. However you value life you probably are in full support of the government making murder illegal because it constitutes a severe harm to the murdered person. I will put forward as Don Marquis has noted that the Harm in abortion/murder stems from the deprivation of a Future Like Ours, a future of Autonomy. 2) Autonomy - Many acts deprive people of autonomy; theft, enslavement, etc. The greatest of all of these is Murder, where in a single act all the autonomy a person would ever exercise is deprived of them. In civil societies autonomy is respected and such actions are banned. Murder, at least of most humans, is banned universally. Fetuses, like all other humans, possess these futures of autonomy, these so called "Futures Like Ours" and therefore it would be exceedingly appropriate to enact a ban of abortion at all timepoints excepting situations where endangerment of other human lives, such as the mother's, must be considered. Most other conditions are not solid grounds for killing human beings and doing so would be a grave miscarriage of Justice. 3) Justice - An estimated 353,000 children are born every day on planet earth and every one of them falls under the protection of their governments. The right to life is universally understood. However there are an additional 115,000 aborted every day whose right to life is deprived. John Rawls wrote that Justice demands that people be treated equally regardless of arbitrary factors, which are factors outside their control such as their race, their sex, and their financial status. I will postulate that many of the reasons people consider solid grounds for abortion are in reality arbitrary factors. For example, just as it is immoral to deny a person equal legal representation because the house they were born in was poor, so much more is it immoral to deny that same person his right to life on the same grounds as is done with abortions justified by economic status. An equally arbitrary (outside the control of the fetus) factor is the mother's relationship status. In fact, when you really get down to it fetuses really control nothing. They make no choices as to the predicament they are in, including whether or not they have a genetic disease (which is another oft-cited justification for abortion). Fetuses are not responsible for anything ill that has happened, not even terrible crimes such as a rape, even if it precipitated their conception. As I hope I have demonstrated the majority of abortions occur for arbitrary reasons and are terrible miscarriages of Justice. Thank you for taking the time to read this and respond thoughtfully.