Restricted abortion should be legal

I thank Stschiffman for their opening argument.Debate NoteDue to Cons comments that suggested they though they couldn't provide rebuttals in round 2 and/or 3 I messaged them and gave them the option to restart the debate if they wanted too. They choose to continue on.Life is precious....Life is precious therefore women can't have an abortion and for the purposes of this debate can't have an abortion in the embryonic period is a HUGE LEAP. How can Con justify such a leap ?Forced continuation of pregnancy as punishmentConsider where Cons says..."More than 99% of all abortions are simply done by women who do not want to live with the consequences of their actions."This is a claim or something similar I hear all to often in the abortion debate. If you ever wondered why some regard the "Pro-life" as anti-woman, it's because of things like this. I reject even the slightest hint that forced continuation of pregnancy is justified cause to allow abortion means a pregnant woman is getting away with something, and thus to ensure that such a woman does not get away with what ever it is you think she is getting away with forced continuation of pregnancy is assumed justified...............it isn't. 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 abortionsCon laments about the number of abortions, I think this is a red herring. How many abortions would be acceptable to Con? 20% less ?, 50% less ? 75% less ? 90% less ?Cons solution to such numbers is too do what exactly ? take away abortion rights ? Too much abortion, thus no abortions for anyone ? never mind the huge non sequitur that is.If Con finds the numbers to high for their liking there are things that have being shown to lower abortion rates which don't require forcing women to continue pregnancy those things fit under the umbrella term more commonly known as the empowerment of women.For example sex education for women, and by sex education I mean REAL sex education, not say an abstinence only sex agenda that deliberately withholds vital information within the subject area. eg contraception.Affordability and access to contraception.Cons: Nazi killing is morally equivalent to abortionsNazi's are bad, like really bad, they killed alot, abortion is killing, ergo abortion is equivalent to Nazi Germany. The USA army has done alot of killing too, even after WW2. Shall we now equate them morally to Nazi's ? probably not.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.Freedom not restricted unless justifiedI take it Con agrees here.The right to life/right not to be killed as an absolute is untenableRecalled how I argued..."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."I maintain the argument stands.Bodily rights argument (the violinist analogy)Con doesn't seem to dispute you can unplug.Also consider this in light of Cons Nazi killing is morally equivalent to abortion assumption. When the Nazi's killed millions of Jews it wasn't because it was necessary to maintain bodily rights of the kind as argued for in the violinist analogy. The Jews killed were not physically living inside various German people.Another morally relevant factor to counter Cons Nazi killing = abortions.Pregnant Women vs Billionaires (Dis-proportionality argument)Recall how I argued that..."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."Once again notice what I maintain is a morally relevant factor in the abortion debate, the non existence of self aware, intelligent humans vs say Nazi killing millions of self aware, intelligent humans.Another difference to counter Cons Nazi killings = abortion.3 day human embryo is not morally equivalent to a human 5 year old childCon doesn't seem to dispute that the correct call to make here is to save the 5 year old child over 100, 3 day human embryos.I maintain this is best explained cause such things as self awareness, intelligence, ability to feel pain are the factors rightly one should take into consideration.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 look forward to Cons reply.