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 try and argue that freedom should not be the starting point. The right to life/right not to be killed as an absolute is false & not all killing is murderThe right to life/right not to be killed is often invoked as justification for not allowing abortion, killing is wrong, abortion kills, ergo abortion is wrong/murder. Notice those who use such reasoning don't them self believe in the right not to be killed 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. Now granted this leaves the door open for a Pro-lifer to make the argument that although killing isn't always wrong, sometimes it is wrong to kill & abortion is an instance of killing that is wrong. Likewise a Pro-choicer can argue killing isn't always wrong and abortion is an instance of where it is not wrongful killing. The logical point being even granting abortion kills something human, it does not NECESSARILY follow then that abortion is murder. 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, as rejecting such a bodily right means everyone would live in danger of say a kidney being taken against their will if it could save some one else. 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 force people to give up a kidney, even if it would save the life of a self aware, intelligent, suffering, human. Now consider the burden being argued to be imposed on a pregnant woman from the moment of conception, 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 sufferings & dangers of pregnancy in order to save less, non thinking, non feeling, non self aware, human embryos. A case for unequal value(5 year old child vs 100, 3day human embryos)Consider the following, you arrive at a burning building, behind one door is a canister of 100, 3 day human embryos, which are perfectly viable, and will remain so as long as they are immediately removed from the building and returned to cold storage. Behind another door is a 5 year old child, there is only time to rescue the canister or the 5 year old but not both. Who do you try to save first ? if any and all human organisms are of equal moral worth then it's simple arithmetic, all things being equal you should try to save 100 over 1. But as I argue they are not equal, and even Pro-lifers would have a hard time choosing to save 100, 3day human embryos over one 5 year old child. If early abortion is murder (reducto argument)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. 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 argue that the abortion is murder premise leads to absurdity and should be rejected as a false premise. Consequences of abortion being made illegalMaking abortion illegal doesn't stop them, woman who have illegal abortions are at much greater risk of injury and death. "Then there are the desperate stories they hear. "I drank floor cleaner. I drank bleach. I took all the pills in the medicine cabinet. I have been trying to think how to crash the car to injure myself permanently but not die " a mother of four. I found poison bottles under my daughter"s bed, that"s how I found out she was pregnant. I"ve taken scalding hot baths, I"ve asked my boyfriend to punch me in the stomach. People say, oh, you"re just making stuff up. No, I wish I was. " [3]Sources[1] . http://spot.colorado.edu...[2] . https://ethicslab.georgetown.edu...[3] . http://www.theguardian.com...