Restricted abortion should be legal

Freedom not restricted unless justified: I did not respond to this because it's redundant. This is what the whole debate is about - justifying if and when a freedom should be restricted. As such, my entire argument is, in a sense, a response to this.The right to life as an absolute is untenable: Pro phrased this argument in Round 2 as a rebuttal. However, I never forwarded this as an argument, so I'm not sure who Pro is responding to. You cannot rebut an argument that was never presented. In any case, sure, let's agree that an absolute right to life belief is untenable. I am not advocating this belief, nor do I need to for this debate. I am advocating a right to life specifically for unborn embryonic humans, and I have no requirement to extend that out to "drone strikes, war, dropping the A bomb..." as Pro says. Again, I never presented an absolute right to life argument, so hopefully this is the last we hear of it.Violinist: I think Pro now sees the problem with this analogy and attempts to avoid it by saying consent can be withdrawn after it is given. That's true, to a point.... but if you give consent all the way up to being connected for 2 weeks and then decide to disconnect, you would absolutely be morally culpable for that death. This is why it's illegal to stop giving CPR once you've started [1]. You willingly agreed to start saving someone, and then willingly decided to stop, fully knowing they would die. At the very least, this fulfills Legal Dictionary's definition of Medical Negligence: "The action (error of commission) or lack of action (error of omission) during a medical procedure which can lead to illness, disability or death." [2]. So, contrary to Pro's claim, someone who voluntarily unplugs after previously giving consent would certainly be morally liable.Pro also says if someone uses contraception then they are "obviously" not consenting to pregnancy. Really? Taking precautions to prevent pregnancy is not the same as withholding consent. That would be like saying "I consent to medication but not side effects." By agreeing to one behavior (sex) you are also agreeing to the risks that behavior involves (pregnancy). Of course, you can do things to reduce the risks like following prescription directions carefully, but that still doesn't make you immune. If you choose to take a prescription that warns "side effects may include headaches," then you have no right to sue the drug company because you got a headache. In a sense, that is what sex is - "warning: this activity may result in pregnancy." Accepting one is by default accepting the other. Of course anyone has the right to withhold consent before (or even during) sex, but that's not at all what we're talking about. We're talking about pregnancy resulting from sex that was consensual from start to finish. (Pro still has not argued for a rape exception).Consent objection vs. right to life: Pro again accuses me of advocating an absolute right to life - "Since Con has gone to the consent/rape objection they can't also use a more fundamental right to life argument in order to justify forced continuation of pregnancy." The problem is I never used a fundamental right to life argument, so I'm not sure why Pro is attacking this. Scroll through my previous argument, you will not find the words "right to life" anywhere. Pregnant Woman vs. Billionaires: Pro agrees there's a big difference between intentional killing and letting someone die, but tries to pivot by saying an embryonic human is not thinking, feeling, or self aware. This is a more formal presentation of the argument that an embryo is just "a blob of cells" with no consciousness or self awareness, suggesting it is not human. My response is that we are all just a blob of cells, we just become bigger blobs as we mature. Since that quality remains the same, the discriminator becomes "thinking, feeling, and self awareness" according to Pro. So, what then do we make of a person in a coma? Or a person who is unconscious or in vegetative status? Such people become merely a "blob of cells" with no feeling, thinking, or awareness. They meet zero of Pro's 5 criteria. Are such people stripped of their personhood? Can they be killed? No reasonable person would say yes. Pro dodges by clarifying "the argument is based on current capacity of X (eg self awareness) not necessary that X is currently exemplified." This only confirms my point. A person in a coma has no capacity for X. They must be brought out of such a state to regain their capacity for anything. My point with this rebuttal is to show that Pro's personhood criteria are insufficient and would qualify other groups of people for death in addition to embryos, which is not reasonable. 3 Day embryo vs. 5 year old: If anyone has failed to engage this argument, it is Pro. Pro never responded to any of the equivalent dilemmas I presented in Round 2. Pro assumes that I would save the 5 year old because I would instinctively identify the 5 year old as a person and the embryos as non-persons. But who would Pro pick if forced to choose between their child and their spouse and why? If Pro chose to save their child, is it because their spouse was a non-person? Or were other factors at play (emotions, utility, social conditioning, etc...)? Any number of factors are at play here, not merely the definition of personhood. So, saving the 5 year old does not prove the embryos lack personhood - there could be many reasons for making that choice.Reducto argument: Pro is trying to sensationalize this. In this entire debate, I have never used the words "hard time," "murder," or "death penalty." Nor have I advocated for an ex post facto law that criminalizes all past and present abortion. If restricted abortion became illegal, it would not necessarily become murder. Maybe it would be a misdemeanor or a fine. That's a topic for a whole different debate. Suffice it to say that if it became illegal, then there would obviously be consequences for breaking the law, as is the case for every law in existence. I remain confused about why this is a controversial stance.Law Consistency: To rebut my call for legal consistency, Pro merely says "the law could be wrong." Pro gives no reason why the law is wrong, only that it's possible. If this is an acceptable rebuttal, then allow me to use it on Pro's entire position - the abortion laws could be wrong. Pro misses the larger point here - the UVVA legally defines an unborn child at ANY stage of development as a full human with rights equal to those of the mother. Legal abortion is therefore a direct contradiction to the Federal government's definition of human life, and so to achieve better legal consistency, restricted abortion should be illegal. Pro did not rebut this point.As far as aliens, I'm not sure what Pro's point is here. I assumed we were debating about human personhood, so unless the alien is human then I fail to see how this is relevant. Pro critiques me for not offering my own definition of personhood. Since Pro is affirming a positive claim, they have the burden of proof and I have no need to defend my own definition. But I maintain that it's more logically, scientifically, and legally consistent to define human life at conception, in which case abortion should be illegal. Pro has not disputed my claim that a genetically unique homo sapien is created upon conception other than saying a human person must exhibit 5 additional criteria. I have already demonstrated why these 5 criteria don't survive scrutiny, which forces us to embrace a definition more in line with the UVAA (a homo sapien at any stage of development), which provides valid justification for making abortion illegal.Finally, Pro dropped my argument that conception is the most logical beginning of human life.[1] http://www.answers.com...[2] http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... negligenc