Early abortion should be legal

I thank Grovenshar for their opening argument.Correction"Now consider the burden being argued to be imposed on a pregnant woman from the moment of *contraception".That should be conception not contraception.Cons main contention: abortion is murderEasy to say, not so easy to justify under scrutiny.Freedom not restricted unless justifiedI take it Con agrees here and seeks to justify that abortion is murder and thus should be restricted.The right to life/right not to be killed as an absolute is untenableNot even Con believes in such an absolute right to life/right not to be killed as Con says..."Keep in mind, I will authorize abortions in situations where the mother will die otherwise." Even by Cons own standards the fact that abortion kills something human does not justify in of it's self that it is wrong or murder.The right to life/right not to be killed as an absolute is untenable is only reinforced by Con.Bodily rights argument (the violinist analogy)Con argues that in the analogy and thus pregnancy that you should be forced to stay connected. I don't think Con appreciates the implications of trampling on such bodily autonomy rights & freedoms.We could kidnapped Con and force them to give up say a kidney to save some one else's life, also does Con really need two lungs ? Cons reasoning if accepted opens up the flood gates where people can have all sorts of things done to their body against their will in the name of saving others lives.Ironically Con cites negative utilitarianism (the least bad for the most people) as an underlying moral frame work, well Con in your world we have to always be on guard and in fear of our body being conscripted against our will to save other people, and thus I argue is against your own moral framework.No conflict of rights/interests in the embryonic periodRecall here that rights more plausibly derive from our interests/desires, such interests don't exist in the embryonic period of the human organism.Unjust burden argumentContra Con I am not twisting anything, a human organism is human in the biological sense and I have not argued or implied otherwise, eg HUMAN organism, HUMAN 3 day embryo, etc etc.Recall how I argued..."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."Consider where Con says..." It's about saving lives vs temporary agony".This glosses over what exactly is being saved or not in the early stages of pregnancy, "non thinking, non feeling, non self aware, human embryos." Once again, a heavier burden on a pregnant woman to save less.Con merely claims it is not unjust but didn't explain in detail why, vague sweeping notions eg apples and oranges isn't a successful refutation of the argument here.I maintain that forced continuation of pregnancy for a woman in the embryonic is an unjust burden.A case for unequal moral equivalence (5 year old child vs 100, 3day human embryos)Con evades the dilemma here, save them all ? sure you can try, but the dilemma is you can't be in two spots at the same, so contra Con the order does matter.(Mother vs Fetus)Also consider a pregnancy where complications are such that either the woman or fetus can live, but not both, and fail to act means both die. I argue that most if not all, will choose the life of the mother over the fetus. This only makes sense if the moral value of different human organisms is not equal. Also consider that about 60% of zygotes do not survive to term, up to half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, often unknown to the pregnant woman. No one considers spontaneous abortion of zygotes or blastocysts as morally significant. The logical point here being that not all things that are human organisms have equal moral value.If abortion is murder (reducto argument)Contra Con I did not say there are endless rows of women in prison for abortion, what I argued for is that if abortion is murder and you are consistent and follow it to it's logical conclusion that is where it gets you. So Con your the one straw-manning here, not me.Allow me to add weight to the absurdity here.Consider a rapist, after raping a woman he tells her, if you end up pregnant and you have an abortion in the embryonic period your worse than I am, I am a rapist but you would be a murder. (Hey if abortion is murder he ain't wrong).Also consider if such an abortion is viewed as murder the rapist gets convicted of rape, but following after is the woman who he raped is now in court because she had such an abortion and thus gets convicted of murder. The woman now will be doing more years (or death penalty) than the rapist. Again you can get out of this by just looking the other way, oh I don't want women in jail on a murder charge for abortions, but that is just an inconsistent position for the advocate that abortion is murder.I still maintain that the abortion is murder premise in the embryonic period is more plausibly false.Cons: Negative utilitarianism (the least bad for the most people)Under Cons own moral reasoning there are arguments that can be made in support of allowing early abortion.1) Bodily autonomy - Already covered previously.2) Prevention of the sufferings and risks (even of death) of pregnancy. Already covered.3) Prevention of suffering of people born into the world with various diseases/conditions eg, Tay-Sachs, Edwards Syndrome Huntington's,Alymphocytosis.4) Making abortion illegal doesn't stop them, woman who have illegal abortions are at much greater risk of injury and death.5) Unwanted babies/children - Higher rates of abuse/neglect for the unwanted, increase societal costs for the unwanted.Personhood & rightsConsider where Cons says..."1-5 shouldn't be a test of humanity because it applies to literally almost all other organisms on earth."That's because it's not a criteria for humanity, it's a criteria for person hood.Maybe Con thinks this is wrong because they are assuming that any and all human organisms make it a person because of its humanity, I don't think that is tenable for the following reasons....1) It's makes person hood dependent on a morally irrelevant property, eg whether something has human dna.2) It's specisist, humans declaring that humanity (in the genetic sense) is what makes a person, excludes everything else from personhood that doesn't have human dna.Also recall my argument that we would recognize self-aware, intelligent aliens as persons based on those characteristics and not deny them personhood cause they lacked humanity in the genetic sense.Con doesn't seem to disagree we should recognize such aliens as persons on such characteristics.Also consider..."This sense of self is critical to our status as persons. In fact, philosophers often use the terms self and person interchangeably: a capacity for self-awareness is necessary for full personhood. One has a sense of self if one is able to entertain first-person thoughts, and if one possesses first-person knowledge." [1]The argument still is that the human organism in the embryonic period is not a person.I look forward to Cons reply.Sources[1] http://socrates.berkeley.edu...