if a healthy infant can be saved instead of aborted later in pregnancy... it should be requried

This argument by my opponent does not follow. "a healthy infant can must always be saved instead of aborted" is a paraphrase of the motion. My opponent's argument is that sometimes it is better to save the child than abort it. This does not follow in all cases. If I can show a case where a child should be aborted instead of attempted to be saved in a pregnancy, then I have succeeded in negating the motion.The equal value of humanityLet's say there are two people: the mother and the child. Either can be saved. If there is an abortion, the mother certainly lives. If there is no abortion, the mother certainly dies, whilst the child will live, due to stress of the early pregnancy, or lack of expertise, or something along those lines. Is it required to save the child in this circumstance? I would say not. What are the chancesLet's take the analogy further. Let's say there is no midwife, or anyone who can help deliver the baby early. The technology in the vicinity for delivering the baby is incredibly bad. But there just so happens to be an abortion specialist nearby, and he has the equipment on him. Now, the chances are roughly calculated by a passing genius of the medical mathematical profession. He works out that it is roughly 99% chance of survival for the woman and none for the child if an abortion occurs, but if no abortion occurs, there is a 1% chance of either the mother or child surviving. However, the child can survive, and can be saved. But in 98 of 100 cases, both shall die. Or we can change the numbers to 0.001% chance for either to give a 999,998 chance in 1 million of both dying. Is it justified to risk both lives so recklessly due to this survival? Of course not. Or let's take the repeatedly occurring scenario of ages past where if the child survives, the mother will die, and vice versa. Is there any reason to value the child over the mother? Of course not: the legislation proposed is ridiculous.The inequal value of humanityLet's say the mother is a well known researcher on the verge of curing cancer. All her data is protected by password lock that cannot be accessed, and shall be deleted if she can't save it. Or she 'knows' the cure for cancer. Is it OK to let her die? I think not. Or let's say the woman is a political prisoner, and if she dies, the people will riot and kill others and cause millions of pounds of damage. Is it OK to let her die for the child to live? Of course not.I have shown through these cases plausible scenarios where the abortion of healthy foetuses is justified. But I want to go further. My opponent states that healthy 'babies' are aborted, implyng that these foetueses have personal worth. On a separate tack altogether, my opponent has not justified why these foetuses should be allowed the rights and liberties of fully fledged moral members of the community. In facI would claim that foetuses, as they cannot contribute, or act, or even survive independently or rationally think or communicate, do not this label of being purely 'children' and 'people'. My opponent has not justified either why they are worth the same amount as fully fledged moral members of the community. In light of all of this evidence, I urge a towards CON.