Restricted abortion should be legal

I thank Stschiffman for their reply. Forced continuation of pregnancy as punishmentCon points out that being against abortion in of it's self doesn't make them misogynist or sexist, I agree, nor did I claim as such. Once again consider Cons implications where they say. .. "More than 99% of all abortions are simply done by women who do not want to live with the consequences of their actions. "What I rebuked Con for is using forced continuation of pregnancy as some sort of punishment, and the implication if such a woman gets an abortion they are getting away with something. As I argued before. .. "Contra this line of thinking, a pregnant woman getting an abortion isn't akin to say some one hitting your car in the supermarket then driving off without leaving a note. Pregnancy involves all kinds of costs and risks, even the risk of death. Also having an abortion is no walk in the park. "Number of abortionsIn regard to how much less abortions would be acceptable to Con they inform us. .. "How about 100% less. ". As I said the actual numbers is just a red herring, there is no actual argument here. Freedom not restricted unless justifiedCon agrees and seeks to provide justification for not allowing abortion. Cons: Nazi killing is morally equivalent to abortionsRecall how I argued that. .. "The reason most of don't compare the killings of the USA army to Nazi Germany is that we realize there are morally relevant factors that apply or don't apply to different situations and thus one situation even though they may have some things in common even killing, doesn't necessarily mean they are morally equivalent. "I take it Con drops this moral equivalency argument in light of my counters. The right to life/right not to be killed as an absolute is untenableRecall the argument here. .. "The right to life/right not to be killed is often invoked as justification for not allowing abortion. Notice those who advocate it don't really believe it them self at least not as an absolute, the most common view where intentional killing is justified is self defense (or some variation of). Then we have issues of drone strikes, war, dropping the A bomb, etc etc. The point is, not even the pro-life-anti choicer believes in such a simplistic absolute right to life and if such a person was to selectively apply such an absolute right to life to justify denying an abortion would be a double standard & hypocritical. "Now consider Cons claim. .. . "None of Pro's arguments can change the one simple truth of it all; killing is wrong,"Once again the double standard is shown. When it comes to abortion, killing is wrong, abortion kills, ergo abortion is wrong. When it comes to killing in other area's, well there are morally relevant factors at play and in case XYZ, killing isn't or may not be wrong. I maintain that the absolute right to life/right not to be killed premise is untenable and Cons argument against abortion rests upon this flawed selectively applied premise and thus should be rejected. Bodily rights argument (the violinist analogy)"Like wise it is argued, a pregnant women can unplug the embryo inside of her, she should not be forced to continue with her pregnancy anymore than some one plugged into the violinist to keep them alive, such is yours & hers bodily rights/freedom. "I don't think I need to say anything more here. Pregnant Women vs Billionaires (Dis-proportionality argument)"So here is the logical point, if rights and freedoms are such that we can't force the billionaires of the world to give up all their wealth except a few millions to save thinking, feeling, self aware humans, then it would be laughable & disproportionate to then argue that we are justified to force women to give up more, their bodily rights and the dangers of pregnancy in order to save non thinking, non feeling, non self aware, human embryos. "I have nothing to add.3 day human embryo is not morally equivalent to a human 5 year old childCon says he would save 100 fetuses over one five year old, even if that is the case it still doesn't change the fact that we would save one 5 year old over 100, 3 day human embryos. If abortion is murder (reducto argument)Con doesn't seem to dispute that if you operate on the abortion is murder premise, past/present/future of women who have such an abortion should be doing hard time or the death penalty (where applied). I maintain we are justified to reject the abortion is murder premise on the absurdity it leads too. Personhood & rightsCon didn't seem to dispute the 1-5 criteria. Con also didn't seem to dispute we should recognize self aware, intelligent aliens as persons using such a criteria. As such the argument is the human organism in the embryonic period is not a person and thus has no right to life. I thank Stschiffman for the debate.