Abortion is always immoral

Thank you Con for a well thought out argument, I to hope that we have a well structured debate! Regarding my use of the term "innocence" in Prem1. Con wrote: "It should also be noted that if we are using the PROs definition of morality, the term of "innocence" is null as PRO has claimed that, by definition, we are basing our moralistic claims in objectivity. Being that "innocence" is an inherently subjective term, it has no baring in determining intrinsic moral value. In order to remain objective as it pertains to this debate, as well as the PROs definition, all human life must be weighed equally." I would argue that the term "innocence" is not null as it is not "inherently subjective" as Con says, but it instead describes the objective state of being or status of the person as to whether or not they are guilty of an infraction against the objective moral standard, whatever that standard may be. It is a descriptor of an objective reality i.e. the person's lack of transgressing against the objective moral order, and is therefore not a subjective concept. The last part that all human life must be weighed equally is true, but irrelevant to the use of this term as the term would apply equally to each person and describe whether or not they were guilty of some infraction against the objective moral standard, the same standard which applies equally to everyone. Con wrote: Prem1: Morality: "The rightness or wrongness of a certain behavior, which is an objective reality to which all individual moral agents should abide." Prem2: Morality applies to both individuals, as well as collectives and/or societies prem3: A moral action may be deemed as "good" if it is beneficial to an individual, or society prem4: A moral action may be deemed as "evil" if it is to the detriment of an individual or society prem5: It is morally "good" to perform actions that have the highest intrinsic moral value. prem6: Actions that affect societies have a higher intrinsic moral value than actions that affect one individual. prem7: Sometimes, taking lives is in the best interest of society. Conclusion: intentionally killing a human person is sometimes moral. I will take issue with Con's prem5: Con has made the move from prem4, which admits that all that is needed for an action to be evil is for it to be a detriment to at least an individual, to prem5, which is a completely utilitarian concept and potentially disregards the very same individual described as being affected by "evil" in prem4. This is because what is in accordance with the "highest intrinsic moral value" (of society presumably) in prem5 could be very detrimental to the individual noted in prem4. That is a contradiction. We must remember that society is made up of individuals FOR individuals, not individuals for society. Con's Prem5 in effect says that is ok to commit an evil act so long as you have a "good" enough reason to do so. That evil is permitted as long as it works out for society's best interest in the grand moral calculus. Definition of morality "The rightness or wrongness of a certain behavior, which is an objective reality to which all individual moral agents should abide." Isn't killing an individual always "detrimental" to him/her as noted in Con's prem4 and therefore a wrong behavior? Isn't the agent of the state or the individual who does the killing a moral agent? Don't they have to abide by this moral standard? Con's prem7 & conclusion: If my analysis above of Con's prem4+5 is correct, that any deliberate killing of any individuals would be an evil, and that any evil present in society is detrimental to that society (as evil by definition is undesirable), it then seems to me that deliberately "taking (innocent) lives" is never in the best interest of society. Also, even if Pro's prem1 is seen as unreasonable, a positive case needs to be made as to how abortion benefits society or how Pro's other premises (regarding fetal personhood) are also unreasonable.