Abortion is always immoral

Con, I wish you a full and speedy recovery, I think it is just that time of year. Con says: "Simply because society is made up of individuals does not necessarily mean the best interest of the collective is dependent on a single human being." Pro: Right, but when we are determining what is "moral" it doesn't follow that we need to take the most general or "zoomed out" view. Instead we should be examining each and every action. We need to ask ourselves not only the "why" (motivation or reason for doing) but the "what" (action being done). both the why and the what need to be good, otherwise the action is morally corrupt. Is there ever a motivation that justifies rape? Or slavery? Or killing an innocent person? The "utilitarian" view that Con is advocating for leads to all sorts of solutions to problems that hardly anyone would agree with. Instead of abortion, why not substitute the fetus with a 12 year old child in the overpopulation scenario? I would like to make a distinction between knowing what the right thing to do is AND what thing is easy or "understandable" to do. Take this situation for example: Imagine being a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp during WWII and the guard offers you a bribe: Rat out any prisoners who are planning on escaping and we will feed your starving wife and kids. What a tough situation the prisoner would find himself in. Either let his family continue to starve on minimal food or feed them at the cost of betraying another prisoner to his sure death (assuming that he will be killed by the guards). I think most people could agree that NOT betraying the other prisoner is the right and moral thing to do, but it would be easy and understandable, although immoral, to take the bribe to feed one's kin and send someone to their death. Con uses a "maximal stakes" scenario to make his point, i.e. the whole of society will perish if one more person is born. Well if Con's utilitarian argument is to hold water, it should also work in a "minimal stakes" scenario so long as the balance of scales in the utilitarian moral calculus tip in favor of the "greater good". If that is the case then deliberately killing 1 person could be justified to save 2 people, and also deliberately killing an elderly or disabled person in favour of a younger or more abled person. Killing a mentally handicapped person in favor of a smart person, or even killing an ordinary person in favor of a very smart person. Get that, even people of ordinary intellect and ability wouldn't have a right to life if the situation arises that they are being compared to even just one person with more "cherished" qualities as deemed by society. Or even better, what if a bank robber demands that you rape an 8 month old infant or he will shoot 10 hostages? By Con's logic, it would be immoral not to rape that infant. This would really open society up to unspeakable horror (in a hypothetical society even more likely than Con's proposed one), if the utilitarian logic was carried out to the fullest extent in the culture. Pro had pointed out to Con that there was a contradiction between Con's premises 3,4&5 and that they would have to be modified for his argument to flow logically. Even if Con's overpopulation argument were correct and that we needed to kill someone in the best interests of society, why kill the unborn? Looking at the world from a certain point of view it can be seen that some people are what could be called "givers" (entrepreneurs, doctors, blue collar workers etc.) that make a net contribution to society and then there are what could be called "takers" (the homeless, drug addicts, elderly, disabled, criminals etc.) who are simply a net drain on society's resources. My question would be: Isn't it better to "cull" the people who are for sure "takers" instead of the unborn as the unborn could be either givers or takers? While I do realize that Con was unable, because of being sick, to respond fully, I wanted to give it a good go.