Outside of endangerment of the mother's life abortion is completely immoral

Before going into my argument, I want to commend you, kingcripple. It sounds like you have had a life much more difficult than most, but through your own hard work and perseverance, you have not let it hold you back. It's inspirational and humbling to those of us, like myself, who take something like walking for granted.On to the points:1. In cases of severe genetic of developmental deformities, to save the child from sufferingI agree with kingcripple, I should have been more precise in my meaning. The type of situation I am talking about is an instance where the child would live at most a few days, and in those days would be in a state of constant suffering. For example, a family acquaintance of mine learned that the fetus in her womb had organs that were growing on the outside of its body. The prognosis for the child, should it survive an excruciatingly painful childbirth, would be a few hours, perhaps a day of life at most, during which the child would be in constant pain. The mother elected to spare her child that suffering, and had an abortion. I cannot, in good conscience, say her decision was wrong.2. In cases of rapeMy opponents questions are valid, and I will answer each:Is it the unborn baby's fault the woman got raped?Absolutely not. The sole blame lies with the rapist. The unborn child is simply another victim of the rape. Would aborting the baby change history and totally erase the rape in every way shape and form?No it wouldn't. The mother would still carry the trauma of the rape, and she would have to heal from that trauma over time (hopefully with the help and support of loving people and professional assistance). That said, aborting the child allows for the trauma to end and for the healing to begin. If the raped woman is forced to carry the child to term, then every symptom will remind her of the rape. Every bout of morning sickness, every doctors' checkup, every ultrasound and every sleepless night will be a new reminder of the horrible abuse she suffered. For many women, this would result in being retraumatized again and again, on a daily basis for months and months. Healing can't begin because the trauma hasn't ended.Even after the baby is born, the trauma still hasn't ended. The mother is forced to make a horrific decision, to either keep the child who looks like her rapist, or to give away her child and never see him/her again. And now the woman is forever linked to the rapist, as he is the father of the child. He can even legally intrude into her life, with custody or legal matters involving the child. Once the child is born, it is impossible for the woman to ever be truly free from her attacker.So, no, aborting the baby doesn't change the fact that the rape happened. However, forcing a woman to carry that child to term has the potential to traumatize her on a scale much greater than the actual rape itself.Does the unborn baby deserve a chance to live and beloved and cared for, regardless of how it was conceived?Yes, the baby does deserve a chance to live. However, we have to be careful here. It's easy to talk about the baby as the only victim. There are in fact two victims, and both their rights have to be considered. The baby deserves a chance to live. The woman deserves to be able to end the trauma of the rape, and not continue to be tortured by it day after day. These are mutually exclusive, so one side has to lose out. I argue that in this instance, it's most moral to make the choice that causes the least suffering.With that in mind, I assert that it is more humane to abort a fetus who has yet to develop any kind of brain, who has no awareness of its surroundings and has yet to gain consciousness, than it is to continue to traumatize a fully conscious, aware and already victimized human. The baby will not suffer. Forcing the mother to carry the child would cause great suffering.Note: For the sake of this argument, I'm specifically referring to an abortion within the first month or so after the rape occurred.3. In the cases where the birth of the child would cause immense suffering or death to othersI'm adding a third scenario in which abortion would be moral. This one is not very applicable in the present day, but applies more when we are looking back through history at choices made in the past.Before modern-day science, many cultures used astrology, auspicious dates, reading of bones or tea leaves, or other methods to try and understand the world around them. To them, this was as real and accepted as science is to us today. There were some situations in which, through the trusted method of divination, it was determined that if a particular child were allowed to be born, it would bring death, destruction or great suffering on a community. If a parent completely believed these predictions were true, then I cannot fault them for deciding to abort a child in order to save those around them. The parent can't be held accountable for what we know now is faulty science, and should actually be commended for making a huge sacrifice for what they truly believed to be the greater good. The act was moral, in the context in which the act was made.