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

I have presented three cases in which I argue that abortion outside the endangerment of the mother's life would be moral. My opponent seems to be focusing entirely on the case of rape. Thus, in regards to the other two cases, namely:In cases of severe genetic or developmental deformities, to save the child from sufferingExample: A child who is developing in the womb with organs on the outside of its body, and its prognosis were it to live would be an excruciating child birth followed by no more than a day or two of life consisting of constant pain and suffering.In the cases where the birth of the child would cause immense suffering or death to othersExample: An aggressor is holding the mother's other children or loved ones hostage, and will kill them unless the mother aborts the child.I am presuming there is no argument in these cases against an abortion being moral. If there is, I invite my opponent to outline opposition in the final round.---I would like to now focus attention onto my opponent's arguments against the third case I presented: In cases of rape.My opponent has adamantly held to the following argument:Premise 1: The unborn child is not at fault for the rapePremise 2: An abortion does not change history and cause the rape to have not occurredPremise 3: An unborn child morally deserves the chance to liveConclusion: In cases of rape, aborting an unborn child is completely immoralThis argument is not valid, as the conclusion does not logically follow from the truth of the premises. I invite my opponent to fill in the argument with additional premises in order to make the argument valid.---Throughout this discussion, I have presented other premises that are relevant to the conversation. Unfortunately, my opponent has continued to dodge arguing these premises, instead brushing them off as 'cop outs'. To successfully rebut my argument, my opponent will have to actually address my argument. Specifically:Premise 1: An unborn child morally deserves the chance to livePremise 2a: A rape victim morally deserves to be freed of being retraumatized by the rapePremise 2b: Being forced to carry the rapist's child results in daily retraumatizing the rape victimthereforePremise 2: A rape victim morally deserves not to be forced to carry the rapist's childPremise 3a: The only way for the unborn child to live is for the mother to carry the child to termPremise 3b: For a rape victim to not be forced to carry the rapist's child, she must have the choice to abort the childtherefore Premise 3: Premise 1 and Premise 2 are incompatible, and it is impossible for both moral requirements to be metPremise 4: In the case of conflicting moral requirements, the moral choice is the one which results in the least human sufferingPremise 5: Aborting a child before it has developed a nervous system, a brain, any consciousness or means of experiencing existence results in no human sufferingPremise 6: Forcing a mother to carry the rapist's child can result in daily and extreme human sufferingTherefore, from P3, P4, P5 and P6,Conclusion: The moral choice is to allow the mother the option of aborting the child while still undeveloped, which would result in zero suffering by the child, and would prevent great suffering by the motherThis argument is valid, as the conclusion logically follows from the premises. I argue it is also sound. For my opponent to successfully argue against this, it would require showing that the argument I've given is not sound. This is my proof of the morality of abortion in the case of rape. If my opponent continues to avoid addressing my argument, that should indicate that my opponent has no contention with it.---My opponent seems to have a misunderstanding of how often rapists actually stand trial.Using UK statistics:There are an estimated 78,000 rapes in the UK every year. * Of these, only 21% are reportedOnly 18% of reported rapes, or less that 4% of total rapes, make it to trial* Note, we are talking actual rapes. These are not false reports or cases where "it wasn't actually rape".There is a good infographic of this at: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net...My opponent asked the question "What judge/jury in their right mind would really let a sex offender have access to a child that they allegedly took part in creating?"This question is valid in less than 4 out of 100 cases of rape. In the other 96 out of 100 cases, it is irrelevant.Over 96% of the time, the rapist is a free, active member of society, with all rights to block an adoption, or intrude on his victim's life. ---In regards to my statement:"Put yourself in her shoes for just a minute. A man violently forces sex upon you without your will. You are then forced to suffer physically, mentally and financially as you struggle through pregnancy with the child you never asked for. You are then forced into a lengthy and expensive court battle to try and get the child into adoption. Finally, you are forced to pay money to your rapist for the next 18 years, all because he raped you. The lack of control and hopelessness of ever having freedom would (and does) force many to suicide."This paragraph was given in support of Premise 6 above. I give an example of the suffering that can occur if a woman is forced to carry the rapist's child. In comparison, a child aborted before it gains any nervous system, brain, or means of experience would not suffer at all. My opponent asks "If it is not the unborn baby's fault the woman got raped, why make it suffer?" However, aborting the child at such an early stage does not cause any suffering. I would turn the question around to my opponent: If the child will experience no suffering due to an early abortion, why make the rape victim suffer?