Abortion in the embryonic period should be legal

I thank Geogeer for their opening argument.Cons opening statement""If the unborn are not human, no justification for elective abortion in necessary. But if the unborn are human, no justification for elective abortion is adequate.""Rhetorically powerful ? sure, trouble is this merely begs the question on some many issues within the abortion debate and to a strong pro life/forced continuation of pregnancy believer it will ring true, to a strong pro choicer it's merely red meat thrown to the wolves.Freedom not restricted unless justifiedI take it Con agrees here or at least didn't challenge.Unjust discriminationCon makes the point of unjust discrimination in the past based on race, religion and gender. I don't disagree, but it works both ways, people can also WRONGLY claim that unjust discrimination has taken place.Consider where Con says..."Yet since we know that the unborn are human we have redefined what person means in order to enable continued discrimination."Presumable he means UNJUST discrimination, again Con will have to establish that and not just assert it. Speciesism & intelligent aliens There is what I consider a fundamental flaw in Cons argument, Con merely grants rights based solely on what species the thing is, a biological classification in this case human.I think this is untenable, consider if we are visited by intelligent, self aware aliens, these aliens have different dna & can not reproduce with humans and thus are a different species, yet most of us would not think it is okey to kill them. I would argue this again shows that something having current capacities of things like intelligence, desire, self awareness are the morally relevant factors and not things like a species classification.Bodily rights argument (the violinist analogy)True to form Con just like anyone else doesn't dispute that you can be unplugged even if it will result in the death of another person. The question is how does he get around it when it come to abortion ?Consider where Con says..."Rather an abortion is a fundamental violation of the just functioning of her body."As opposed too forcing a women to continue with a pregnancy against her will is not an unjust violation of her what ? body ? mind ? soul ? bodily integrity ?.......................her right to choose ?Cons reasoning justifies rapeConsider 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. You wouldn't accept that kind of reasoning for justifying forced sex, likewise don't accept it for forced continuation of pregnancy. You can unplug even if a person will die as a result, likewise a woman can unplug, bodily rights for the win, the argument stands.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.Con firstly resorts to the law, this is amusing considering one of his earlier arguments was about unjust law, discrimination based on race, religion, gender. The law can be wrong & messed up.Consider where Con says..."If we demand that parents and guardians provide for the necessities of life after birth, it is only logical that this responsibility begins when the child begins."Even if we accept that it makes no difference, well why not ? cause I made a big noise and fuss about the difference between thinking, self aware humans and the human organism absent those capacities in the early stages of pregnancy.We are still left with the hugely dis-proportionality of billionaires are not forced to give up most of their wealth to save millions of thinking, self-aware humans but pregnant women will be forced to continue a pregnancy to save a non thinking, non self aware human organism.Contra Con not logical, just hugely disproportional. A note on taking away women's choiceFrankly it's insulting, cause the bodily rights the anti choicer demand for themselves and even billionaires suddenly gets thrown out once pregnancy is involved. As such they have to resort to ad hoc rules to try and justify what I maintain is unjustifiable, to force a women to continue a pregnancy from the moment of conception.Human 3 day human embryo is not morally equivalent to a 5 year old childRecall how I argued that a 5 year old child not only trumps a 3 day human embryo it trumps even 100.Con claims my argument here is based on development. I don't think that does justice to the argument here cause the argument refers to specific characteristics that are argued to be the morally relevant factors at play, those being things like intelligence, self awareness, and NOT say height, weight, looks etc etc.Con refutes only a straw man of the argument, not the actual argument, the actual argument stands.AntinatalismCon response here is one big LOL, well at least I found it funny, but then again I may be a bit dark.Con will be happy to know the argument does not logically entail such a conclusion of such things as carpet bombing refugee camps, well why not ? cause the argument assumes all the various claims that came before it, like bodily rights, the personhood of things that possess intelligence and self awareness. That is why the argument is..."As such the argument is at the very least a pregnant woman should be able to have an abortion in the embryonic period in order to prevent another person being bought into this world to suffer." and not say, kill them, kill them all.Personhood & the right to lifeIt should be noted I made a mistake in Warrens personhood criteria, their criteria states that something only need some not all of that criteria for personhood. We can be extremely flexible to the Pro life/anti choice position under Warrens personhood criteria and it still would not matter as Warren argues..."All we need to claim, to demonstrate that a fetus (for my side the human organism in the embryonic stage) is not a person, is that any being which satisfies none of (1)-(5) is certainly not a person. I consider this claim to be so obvious that I think anyone who denied it, and claimed that a being which satisfied none of (1)-(5) was a person all the same, would thereby demonstrate that he had no notion at all of what a person is-perhaps because he had confused the concept of a person with that of genetic humanity" [1]I have alluded too this criteria in order to make this distinction such as intelligence and self awareness. You see this in such cases as the intelligent aliens and 3 day human embryo arguments. If Con rejects these criteria but never the less claims that say intelligent aliens should be considered as persons then on what basis do they do this if they reject the former as the criteria for personhood ?Consider where Con..."Whereas rationality is inherent to human nature."It's one thing to say something that has the current capacity to have intelligence and/or think rational, but when you are talking about a 3 day human embryo and imply it has a rational nature what does that even mean ?How does one determine if something has a "rational nature" or not ?I can just claim that a 3 day human embryo does NOT have a rational nature. Without some criteria/reasoning it just one assertion vs another assertion. I think Con needs to give us more than his mere assertion on this rational nature business.I look forward to Cons replySources [1] http://instruct.westvalley.edu...