Elective abortion is prima facie immoral

at first sight (= based on what seems to be the truth when first seen or heard)

An elective abortion is the interruption of a pregnancy before the 20th week of gestation at the woman’s request for reasons other than maternal health or fetal disease.

Dr. Ali Binazir illustrates the extremely unlikely chain of events that would have to occur in order for you to be born with this example in a blog post:

Imagine there was one life preserver thrown somewhere in some ocean and there is exactly one turtle in all of these oceans, swimming underwater somewhere. The probability that you came about and exist today is the same as that turtle sticking its head out of the water — in the middle of that life preserver. On one try.

The path begins with the odds of your dad meeting your mom (1 in 20,000). This is multiplied by the chances of them staying together long enough to have kids (1 in 2,000), and so on...

The probability of you existing at all comes out to 1 in 10 2,685,000— yes, that's a 10 followed by 2,685,000 zeroes!

So what's the probability of your being born? It's the probability of 2.5 million people getting together -- about the population of San Diego -- each to play a game of dice with trillion-sided dice. They each roll the dice -- and they all come up the exact same number -- say, 550,343,279,001.

A miracle is an event so unlikely as to be almost impossible. By that definition, I've just proven that you are a miracle.

Now go forth and feel and act like the miracle that you are.

What primarily makes killing wrong is neither its effect on the murderer nor its effect on the victim’s friends and relatives, but its effect on the victim. The loss of one’s life is one of the greatest losses one cansuffer. The loss of one’s life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments which would otherwise have constituted one’s future. Therefore, killing someone is wrong, primarily because the killing inflicts (one of) the greatest possible losses on the victim. To describe this as the loss of life can be misleading, however. The change in my biological state does not by itself make killing me wrong. The effect of the loss of my biological life is the loss to me of all those activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments which would otherwise have constituted my future personal life. These activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments are either valuable for their own sakes or are means to something else that is valuable for its own sake. Some parts of my future are not valued by me now, but will come to be valued by me as I grow older and as my values and capacities change. When I am killed, I am deprived both of what I now value which would have been part of my future personal life, but also what I would come to value. Therefore, when I die, I am deprived of all of the value of my future. Inflicting this loss on me is ultimately what makes killing me wrong. This being the case, it would seem that what makes killing any adult human being prima facie seriously wrong is the loss of his other future.

the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

Most respondents to a survey of abortion patients in 1987 said that more than one factor had contributed to their decision to have an abortion; the mean number of reasons was nearly four. Three-quarters said that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities, about two-thirds said they could not afford to have a child and half said they did not want to be a single parent or had relationship problems. A multivariate analysis showed young teenagers to be 32 percent more likely than women 18 or over to say they were not mature enough to raise a child and 19 percent more likely to say their parents wanted them to have an abortion. Unmarried women were 17 percent more likely than currently married women to choose abortion to prevent others from knowing they had had sex or became pregnant. Of women who had an abortion at 16 or more weeks' gestation, 71 percent attributed their delay to not having realized they were pregnant or not having known soon enough the actual gestation of their pregnancy. Almost half were delayed because of trouble in arranging the abortion, usually because they needed time to raise money. One-third did not have an abortion earlier because they were afraid to tell their partner or parents that they were pregnant. A multivariate analysis revealed that respondents under age 18 were 39 percent more likely than older women to have delayed because they were afraid to tell their parents or partner.

The cells of the human endometrium are tightly aligned, creating a fortress-like wall around the inside of the uterus. That barrier is packed with lethal immune cells. As far back as 1903, researchers observed embryos ‘invading’ and ‘digesting’ their way into the uterine lining. In 1914, R W Johnstone described the implantation zone as ‘the fighting line where the conflict between the maternal cells and the invading trophoderm takes place’. It was a battlefield ‘strewn with… the dead on both sides’.

When scientists tried to gestate mice outside the womb, they expected the embryos to wither, deprived of the surface that had evolved to nurture them. To their shock they found instead that – implanted in the brain, testis or eye of a mouse – the embryo went wild. Placental cells rampaged through surrounding tissues, slaughtering everything in their path as they hunted for arteries to sate their thirst for nutrients. It’s no accident that many of the same genes active in embryonic development have been implicated in cancer. Pregnancy is a lot more like war than we might care to admit.

1. Unless Pro is going to run a case for considering all masturbation and contraception as immoral, it follows that humans 'wasting their reproductive capacity' is considered morally neutral or even a good liberty to allow and this snowballs into why it's so rare anyone exists at all and why abortion is a drop in the ocean relative to all else that could prevent human life and thus we must admit that it's, prima facie, just another thing happening that leads to no human life despite there being potential for it.
   
2. Would-be mothers who have abortions (or would have if it were available to them) are automatically not likely to raise the child well, it is actually their urge to protect the fetus from a life of shitty foster care or shitty life under their care that leads them to abort. It is their urge to do right by the child that leads them to want to abort. The only way they would turn into an 'evil mother' is if you force them to have it and they go 'well now I'm stuck with you and I don't want you to suffer under some parents I don't know so I'll raise you as my beloved burden' and be a passive-aggressive type of abusive or neglectful mother.
   
3. The fetus itself being human and possessing DNA that happens to be of our species is breaching prima facie if you analyse the act in itself. The entire trade of non-vegetarian foods as well as eggs must be deemed equally prima-facie immoral if we are to really stick to prima facie and hold Pro's position as correct. Considering what happens in factory farms, I am not sure that aborting a chicken or cow-fetus is all that cruel at all.
   
4. Pro has yet to explain why abortion should be murder as opposed to a separate crime, the fetus is a parasite to its mother and forcing her to undergo it is prima facie immoral.