Early abortion should be legal

I than Con for their reply.Cons main contention: abortion is murderFreedom not restricted unless justifiedAgreed by Con.The right to life/right not to be killed as an absolute is untenableEither the right not to be killed is an absolute or it isn't. I have shown why in it's absolute form why its untenable, Con them self admits abortion is not murder in at least one situation.Vague rhetorical notions of the right to life as the ultimate moral imperative doesn't change that.Abortion = murder can't be justified just because something human is killed because that presupposes an absolute right not to be killed which is shown to be an untenable premise.Bodily rights argument (the violinist analogy)Recall how Con had previously argued that you were not allowed to disconnect from the violinist in the name of saving another life, as Con had argued..."I would say that the person who is plugged in has a moral obligation to be plugged into him. It may harm him temporarily, but it will save a life, which, under a negative utilitarian view, is the superior obligation."So yes indeed Cons reasoning does open the flood gates, since under their reasoning peoples bodies can be used against their will in the name of saving other lives, I showed were that justification gets you, Con is in denial here.Con can't be forced to stay connected to the violinist, Con can't have various organs of their body used against their will even if it will save some else's life. This is also the case for the pregnant woman, such is our and hers bodily rights & freedoms. I maintain the bodily rights argument stands unrefuted by Con. 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.Yes this is still the case in light of Cons reference to butterfly chrysalis. The point stands.Unjust burden argumentCon never explained what protecting life means and justified as such. Once again, can we force Con to give up a body organ to save some ones else's life ? Can we push Con in front of an oncoming bullet to protect some else's life ?The point being even protecting life has it's limits you can't justify everything and anything under this vague notion. So no Con can't counter the argument here with even more vague notions.Also Cons scenario has many different morally relevant factors compared to pregnancy, the costs of pregnancy vs just pulling a trigger, early human organisms vs post birth, self-aware intelligent humans etc.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."Yes this is still the case even if you agree to shoot with a tazor in Cons scenario.A case for unequal moral equivalence (5 year old child vs 100, 3day human embryos)Con evades the analogy by making all the embryos dead. But what happens when they are not dead ? that is to say what happens if the embryos are viable ?I maintain the 5 year old trumps, 100, 3 day human embryos.(Mother vs Fetus)Contra Con in the later stages of pregnancy, some fetuses can live outside the womb..."Viability refers to a point in fetal development at which the fetus may survive outside the womb. The lower limit of viability is approximately five months gestational age and is usually later" [1]I maintain most will correctly save the mother over a fetus.Spontaneous abortion of zygotes/blastocystsContra Con they are not dead eggs..."The zygote represents the first stage in the development of a genetically unique organism. The zygote is endowed with genes from two parents, and thus it is diploid (carrying two sets of chromosomes)" [2]They are human organisms, once again demonstrating the point that not all human organisms are of equal moral value.If abortion is murder (reducto argument)As Con says..." if abortion is murder, than it should be punished like murder." And that is where you get your mass incarceration of women for murder Con.So there are two possibilities.......1) Be logically consistent, and start locking up all those woman and future women who have had such an abortion. or 2) Reject such a conclusion based on the realization that abortion is murder in the embryonic stage is false premise to begin with.I still maintain that such an abortion being murder is more plausibly false, and contra con if anyone is a victim here its women who have being told and had to live under laws that presuppose this false premise.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. Contra Con stopping death doesn't justify doing anything and everything.3) Prevention of suffering of people born into the world with various diseases/conditions eg, Tay-Sachs, Edwards Syndrome Huntington's,Alymphocytosis. Contra Con, the point here is about abortion performed before such people exist, not waiting till such people exist then killing them.4) Making abortion illegal doesn't stop them, woman who have illegal abortions are at much greater risk of injury and death.Con just assumes again abortion is murder, I maintain Con has not being able to establish that thus has no counter here.5) Unwanted babies/children - Higher rates of abuse/neglect for the unwanted, increase societal costs for the unwanted.Contra Con again by having an early abortion such people don't exist in the first place, thus such people are not getting killed.Personhood & rightsContra Con a seahorse doesn't meet the criteria for personhood, if your looking for life on earth other than humans the usual first candidates in line are the great apes.Also note even if the 1-5 criteria is rejected, Cons own personhood criteria doesn't win by default. They would have to establish that, which I maintain they did not, they just assumed it.Even if science can't prove others have self-awareness, this doesn't actually refute the criteria in theory, only that it has problems in practice, but this is often the case on many things.Never the less if Con insists that the criteria should be rejected cause science can't prove whatever, then this applies to their own argument that abortion is murder in the moral sense. Science can't tell you what is moral or immoral, only facts, it can tell you that something has being killed but not that it was wrong to do so. As such using Cons own reasoning since science can't prove that abortion is murder Con has no basis for not allowing abortion on such a moral justification.Also notice Con does not deny that self aware, intelligent aliens should be recognized as persons, but this can't be the case on Cons person hood criteria of genetic human = person, non genetic human = non person, but can be recognized on a current mental capacity criteria like the 1-5.I maintain that the 1-5 personhood criteria is at least superior to Cons criteria thus the argument still is the human organism in the embryonic stage is not a person and thus does not have a right to life (how ever that right is defined).I would remind Con as per rules no new arguments in the last round only rebuttals. This is especially important considering Con has yet to make much of an argument for their own person hood criteria.I thank Grovenshar for the debate.Sources [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.britannica.com...