Early abortion should be legal

Freedom not restricted unless justifiedI think this is axiomatic. It's not just an issue of being free or wanting freedom or arguably freedom being necessary for well being, even if rejected on those grounds to argue otherwise is self defeating, since you presuppose the freedom to argue as your starting point if you were to even try that non freedom should be the starting point rather than freedom. The right to life/right not to be killed as an absolute is untenableThe 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 in the absolute sense, 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 logical point is that any anti-abortion argument that is built upon such an absolute right to life/right not to be killed has at it's foundation a false premise and can be rejected as such, not to mention the double standard of selectively applying it in the case of pregnancy to deny abortion rights. Bodily rights argument (the violinist analogy)Judith Jarvis Thomson asks us to consider the following. .. "You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. " [1]Even granting the violinist a right to life the question is thus, do you have the right to disconnect ? Are others justified forcing you to stay connected if you choose to disconnect ? I know of no anti-abortion person who says that you can't choose to disconnect. Like wise it is argued, a pregnant women can take action to be unplugged from the embryo inside of her, she should not be forced to continue with a pregnancy anymore than some one plugged into the violinist to keep some one else alive, such is yours & hers bodily rights/freedom. No conflict of rights/interests in the embryonic periodThe argument here is that rights most plausibly derive from interests/desires. We support general rules of not killing cause of our interest/desire in going on living, we support property rights cause we don't want our stuff taken from us, we support freedom of speech, etc etc. In the embryonic period the human organism has no current capacity to have an active or ideal desires, as there is no organized cortical brain activity. David Boonin writes. .. " organized cortical brain activity refers to electrical activity in the cerebral cortex of the sort that produces recognizable EEG readings. As I noted in Section 3.5.3, there is no evidence to suggest that this occurs prior to approximately the 25th week of gestation, and ample evidence to suggest that it does begin to occur sometime between the 25th and 32nd week" [2]Unjust burden argumentSometimes right/interests conflict and we seek to manage such conflicts such as imposing various burdens upon people. Never the less those burdens have to be justified and be proportional to interest/conflict concerned. For example we don't consider it an unjust burden to demand & enforce that people don't poison the water supply, but we would consider it an unjust burden to say restrict people to only wearing thick wool coats no matter how hot it is. Now consider the burden being argued to be imposed on a pregnant woman from the moment of contraception, that being she should be forced to continue the pregnancy even against her will, incur the pain/suffering of said pregnancy and be subject to the risks of complication that can occur in a pregnancy, complications that can result in serious injury even death for the pregnant woman. So here is the logical point, if we are not justified to imposed a burden on billionaires of the world to give up all their wealth except a few million (still leaving them richer than most) to save thinking, feeling, self aware, suffering, post birth humans, then it would be laughable & disproportionate to then argue that we are justified to force women to give up more, their bodily autonomy and the dangers of pregnancy in order to save less, non thinking, non feeling, non self aware, human embryos. A case for unequal moral equivalence (5 year old child vs 100, 3day human embryos)Consider the following, you arrive at a burning building, behind one door are 100, 3 day human embryos, behind another a 5 year old child. Who do you try to save first ? Most if not all will try to save the 5 year old, if a 3 day human embryo is morally equivalent to say a 5 year old child then it is simple arithmetic, try to save the 100 hundred all things being equal before you try to save the 1. But as I argue they are not equal, the 5 year old child not only trumps one 3 day human embryo, it even trumps one hundred. If abortion is murder (reducto argument)If it is the case that abortion in the embryonic stage is equivalent to murder as some anti-choicers assert then that means all women who have had an abortion in that period should all be in jail doing sentences for murder, maybe even the death penalty, as well as any future women who will have such an abortion. Think about it, the likes of Charles Manson, Ted Bundy and next to them endless row cells of women who had an abortion in the embryonic stage. So there are two possibilities. .. .. ..1) Be logically consistent, and start locking up all those woman and future women who have had such an abortion. or 2) Reject such a conclusion based on the realization that abortion is murder in the embryonic stage is false premise to begin with. I argue that the abortion is murder premise leads to absurdity and should be rejected as a false premise. Personhood & rightsConsider the following argument. ..1) Only a person has a right to life2) If X has none of the characteristics [1-5] it is certainly not a person.3) The human organism in the embryonic stage has none of the [1-5] characteristicsC) Therefore the human organism in the embryonic stage is not a personC2) Therefore the human organism in the embryonic stage is has no right to life[1-5] refers to the following characteristics. .. .1) Consciousness, 2) Reasoning, 3) Self-motivated activity ,4) The capacity to communicate, 5) The presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness,Warren argues. .. "All we need to claim, to demonstrate that a fetus (for my purposes in this debate the human organism in the embryonic stage)is not a person, is that any being which satisfies none of (1)-(5) is certainly not a person. I consider this claim to be so obvious that I think anyone who denied it, and claimed that a being which satisfied none of (1)-(5) was a person all the same, would thereby demonstrate that he had no notion at all of what a person is-perhaps because he had confused the concept of a person with that of genetic humanity. " [3]Consider we are visited by self-aware, intelligent aliens, presumably Con and a pro-lifers would recognize them as persons based on such characteristics. I look forward to Cons response. Sources[1] . http://spot.colorado.edu...[2] . https://ethicslab.georgetown.edu...[3] . http://instruct.westvalley.edu...