Abortion can be demonstrated as immoral using Beauchamp's Principles

To close my argument I would like to summarize why Beauchamps Principals cannot be used to demonstrate abortion to be immoral. This will I believe show that the BOP has not, and cannot, be met by my opponent to prove his resolution. To summarize:"Respect for autonomy: respecting the decision-making capacities of autonomous persons; enabling individuals to make reasoned informed choices. "(1)The patient must be an autonomous person for these principals to apply. This is game over really for my opponents resolution. "Non maleficence: avoiding the causation of harm; the health care professional should not harm the patient. All treatment involves some harm, even if minimal, but the harm should not be disproportionate to the benefits of treatment" (1)To avoid harm to the patient or autonomous person the physician must act in their best interests upto the legal cut off point for a termination. This cut off point is determined by the use of these very principles to balance the woman's rights against the unborn child's. It is as close to being morally and ethically acceptable as is possible with current technologies. This may change in time with advances in medicine ie the creation of an artificial womb allowing survival and development outside of the mother before 24 weeks. It is however sound reasoning at this time. "Justice: distributing benefits, risks and costs fairly; the notion that patients in similar positions should be treated in a similar manner. "(1)All autonomous patients must be equally respected and the benefits available to all reasoning patients. My opponents scenarios are both very light on detail. We know that the decision to turn off life support is subject to extensive information from probability of recovery diagnosed with the latest scans etc. The scenario involving murder is that of one autonomous person killing another, these principals do not apply and I suggest neither scenario advances any proof supporting my opponents resolution. My opponent stated that I can add this principle should it help my case, I feel it is an important principal and that covering only three of the four is not a complete argument, hence: "Beneficence: this considers the balancing of benefits of treatment against the risks and costs; the health care professional should act in a way that benefits the patient"(1)For me, the key point here has to be the patient. This I would say is clearly the woman up until the cut off point (24 weeks) and in other cases the autonomous patient at all phases of treatment. If the woman will benefit from the termination then this principal applies to her, and her only, upto the cut off. I would suggest therefore that the principals can not be used to show abortion immoral and that my opponent has not reached the BOP to prove his resolution. This is not to say that the morality of abortion is not up for debate but purely that these principals as currently standing can not be used to that end because they protect autonomous patients. Many thanks to my opponent and to you for taking the time to vote! (Please note that I have intentionally used the same source as my opponent for clarity of definitions. )(1). http://www.ukcen.net...