Abortion in the embryonic period should be legal

I thank Geogeer for their reply.AntinalismI would agree there are more important issues pertaining to this debate than what is addressed here.Unjust discriminationOnce again I would remind readers that Cons constant bringing up of injustice in other area's does not in of it's self justify injustice concerning abortion.If Con has made the case for injustice for his side of the abortion debate on its OWN MERITS, then great, but don't let him get away with either just assuming it as a prior.Bodily rights argument (the violinist analogy)Recall how I argued..."Consider the following argument from a rapist or pro-rape group, women have female sexual parts, to deny sexual intercourse is a fundamental violation of the just function of the woman's body. It's on this basis that any so called bodily rights of the woman to choose to have sex is null and void. "Consider where Con says..."Pro does not seem to understand why using something according to its function is important"Con doesn't seem to understand that anyone can make up assertions of what constitutes proper function of a woman's body and then also assume this justifies taking away bodily autonomy of women.Concerning Cons chairs and not being able to sue analogy consider the following points.........1) Teleology of the kind that exists for human made things (eg chairs) does not necessarily apply to the natural world (eg womens bodies.2) Even if it did, Con never justified how choice for a woman can be suppressed in order to maintain merely asserted proper body function X concerning a woman's own decision about her own body.3) You can't sue (in the analogy) = woman should be forced to continue with a pregnancy ? WHAT ?Con says..."Pro makes one attempt to deny the validity of Natural Law by stating that natural function of the woman's body justifies rape. "No Con, I deny the reasoning of you just making up at your own pleasure what is proper function of a woman body/parts then assuming this justifies taking away a womans choice in the name of said proper function.Con goes on..."However, this argument is false for 2 reasons. First, it assumes that sex has only one purpose, which is procreation. However, Natural Law dictates that sex has 2 purposes, procreation and unity of the couple"All Con has done here once again made up mere assertions of what is proper function but just attached "natural law dictates" as if that makes it any less of a mere assertion/s.The pro rape group can just assert natural law dictates another purpose of sex is pleasure, again same reasoning, same conclusion, no choice for women.Con does the same for breast milk, merely asserts proper function and assumes this takes away bodily right of the woman. Also notice how all debate long Con wants to gloss over the differences of say a 5 year old child, who can feel pain, has desire to live etc vs a non thinking, non self aware, human organism in the early stages of pregnancy.Just keep shouting you got to look after the child and hope no one notices seems to be the Pro-life/anti choice tactic here.Cons reasoning is flawed, flawed on the basis of mere assertions of what is or is not a proper function of a woman's body, & flawed on the basis that it merely assumes that women can be forced against their will to comply to adhere to said merely asserted proper body function of her own body.Con doesn't dispute that you can unplug in the analogy, I maintain that Con has not be able to refute the bodily rights argument.Pregnant Women vs Billionaires (Dis-proportionality argument)"Recall how I made the argument that various rights & freedoms are such that we can't even be justified forcing billionaires to give up most of their wealth (still leaving them richer than 99%) to save millions of lives, lives of intelligent, self aware, humans then how laughable and more importantly disproportional it would be to then turn around and force women to continue with a pregnancy to save a non thinking, non self aware, human organism."Contra Con, I merely made the point that you can't hide behind the law in & of it's self to justify what ever, you even alluded to this in your reference to unjust discrimination in the past of race, gender.Con merely thinks that such dis proportionality is justified, but that is only the case if their arguments hold up, if not the dis proportionality I refer to here stands. Human 3 day human embryo is not morally equivalent to a 5 year old childCon is forced to reject intelligence and self awareness as morally relevant factors to justify their side of the argument here. That's fine they can do that, but it just creates an untenable situation for them self later on. Personhood & the right to lifeP1: To intentionally kill an innocent human being is wrong.P2: Abortion [intentionally] kills innocent human beings.C: Abortion is wrong.But does abortion INTENTIONALLY kill anything ? Writer Dave argues..."The NCHS[10], major OB/GYN textbooks[11][12][13], medical dictionaries[14] and even the Encyclopaedia Britannica[15] agree abortion is a procedure the primary effect of which is to terminate the physiological connection between the woman and the pre-birth human.The intent of abortion is to terminate the connection, like in the violinist analogy death is the effect, not the intent.Con says..." However, a rational nature is easy to prove. Biogenesis. Humans beget other humans. "Flawed logic, just because the cause of B has A, doesn't mean B also has every characteristic of A from the beginning of it's existence.Consider where Cons claims...The first was to show that if we are to have inalienable rights they must logically come into existence at the moment our lives begin, as an inalienable right cannot be gained or lost."Merely asserting an inalienable right exists from the moment of conception, a right that in some way trumps any so called rights/interests of a woman to choose not to continue a pregnancy in the embryonic period is just that, an assertion with an assumption.Con is trying to make equivalent the current capacities of say self awareness with potential capacity of self awareness I don't think that works. For starters by definition they are different, Actual vs Potential.Consider where Con says..."How do we know that we have a rational nature? It is pretty simple. The normative state of humans is that of rational creatures. It is not random for humans to express rationality, instead it the our natural state"And what is that "normative state" ? what is this expression of rationality ? among other things, self awareness and intelligence...........DUH.Cons arguments for rational nature and thus personhood is based on potential capacities like self awareness, but the valuing of potential self awareness is predicated on the valuing of ACTUAL capacity for self awareness in the first place.Con says..."it sounds nice, but all it establishes is that Warren thinks his criteria is right without any additional justification."Consider this your justification to accept such criteria.As such Con has no case, none, zero, nadda, zip, to complain that I argue current capacity for self awareness in my person vs non persons argument. Also Con has no case against my arguments that take such things as morally relevant in my 3 day human embryo and intelligent aliens arguments.The argument is as such, no person exists in the embryonic period. Once again even Cons argument agrees that non persons don't have the right to life.Closing StatementHas Con being able to refute the arguments in support of allowing abortion in the embryonic period ? I maintain that they have not.I thank Geogeer for the debate.Vote Pro.Sources/notes(1) http://www.debate.org...