Abortion is morally permissible, even if the pregnancy would pose no threat to the mother's life.

A BOP would be taken by the instigator of the debate in most circumstances. It is with your essential claim. You state that abortion is morally permissible, even if it poses not threat to a mothers life. You are saying you are opposed to this statement, and have instigated the debate. Thus you have to show why it is not morally permissible in any other circumstance. Most people will claim a shared BOP in the topic, or specifically reference that the opposition is left with the BOP. When you are claiming something to be something, it is on you to show why that stance is correct. It is my job to undermine and show why that stance can be wrong or could be considered wrong. Now I will offer rebuttals. Rebuttal 1morality 1. "In that case we're both screwed. You can't prove that abortion is right, and I can't prove it's wrong. The best I could do is go by the moral/legal framework we generally use in society (i.e. humans have rights, including the right to life, and rights cannot be violated without just cause), but that would be an argument from popularity/authority."The point in this was not to claim it to be right nor wrong. It was my attempt to show that abortion can be justified in certain situations by some peoples standards. We have objectivity about morality within our society as a hole. We think murder is wrong, and that is commonly accepted and placed within the law. Thus this is an objective fact, that is dependent on where we live. My initial statement about this was to show that anyone can justify anything in certain situations. If there is no gauge for morality, then anything is permissible. Thus making abortion morally acceptable in every circumstance. I was not saying that I believe this is the case, but showing that it could be a possibility. Unless you are able to find a way to gauge morality, your argument that it is immoral is invalid. Meaning morality can be subjective or have moral relativity tied to it. The most logical way to argue this is to find a way and a standard by which we can determine what or what is not moral. My perspective is that it is directly relevant to culture and society. Meaning morality is directly dependent on what is objective within that society at that point. It is a mix of experience, culture doctrines, and fundamental laws that help us define what is moral. This is where you adopt the logic of "murder is wrong". The obvious counter argument would be that a fetus is not a life. With both sides having no iron clad proof either way, it is safe to assume it is a logically acceptable premise. If some study where to come out that hands down showed a fetus was in fact a life, at that point abortion would be considered objectively wrong. Until that is the case, we can only operate under our on personal assumptions on the situation, which can make it morally permissible if the situation requires it. This also in turn shows that it can be morally acceptable dependent on certain situations. Rebuttal 2Rape"Using "she was raped" as justification for abortion is like saying "she was raped, therefore she gets to kill something". If that "something" is her rapist then I would be all for that. But it is generally understood that mental anguish doesn't give somebody the right to take an innocent life, which the fetus definitely qualifies as. Personhood doesn't make a life innocent or not, nor does it automatically give you the right to kill it (otherwise we could butcher our pets with no consequences)."For this to be a coherent statement, you would have to show a fetus is an actual living being. By life i do mean human. At this point neither side has been able to do so. So if it is not considered a human and abortion is accepted as an option. It is entirely possible to construe this a morally permissible act. To say any different, you would have to demonstrate with iron clad certainty and proof that a fetus is in fact a living human being. To operate further under this assumption. You state that it is okay and morally permissible to kill a fetus if it endangers a mother life. With the line of thought you are operating under, you are trading a life for a life. If murder is morally wrong by your standards, your argument is counter intuitive. Then you would have to evaluate which life is held above the other. Rebuttal 3A fetus is aliveI am sorry you misunderstood this. By alive i mean an actual person. We can say most things are alive, but that is not the question. It is whether or not we are actually killing a living being. I have shown a source and provided logic to support that it is just an embryo and has no qualities of a human. To demonstrate this point further, you then have to show what qualities a human has and show a fetus also has it. Ex conscious, senses, etc. A fetus has none that we know of and can not be shown to. In closingThe resolution has not been met. He has not shown that death of a mother is the only morally acceptable circumstance.