Abortion in the embryonic period should be legal

Holy sh*t. Alright, I would first like to commemorate the affirmative for literally decimating nearly any argument before it has a chance to come up. So, holy hell... congrats. However, allow me to present the argument of life. In each scenario, my opponent has presented that the embryonic period of a child results in them not being a child. Every analogy formed was to prove such a claim. Yet, it isn't what something is right at that moment that should determine our immediate decisions. A child in the embryonic stage is still a child, be it that they are unborn, and yes, unfeeling... Yet, even if something cannot feel the pain of its life ending, that does not mean it was not alive. A fetus in the embryonic stage is the beginning of life, a human life. While it has not yet reached full humanity, that is where it is going. That is what the child will be, a person. I agree with bodily autonomy, but we are not forcibly hooked up to individuals such as the violinist analogy, rather, women are connected to the very thing that makes life continue on. To end such a thing is to deny even the chance at the world, a chance to experience what is real and what isn't. Just because something isn't conscious does not mean it isn't truly alive. The embryonic stage of a child is the beginning and development of another individual in our societies, even if the mother does not wish to care for the child, they should not be allowed to end the child's life before it has begun. instead, they should give birth to the child, once it has passed the stages and processes that will lead it to being a person, then the child should be taken and placed in the care of the individuals who wish to care for them. For, no matter the stage, from cell to baby, that is still life. I would also like to present an argument of morality For example, expanding a bit off my previous argument, a child in the embryonic stage will soon be a child. The morality of the reason why a mother would not want their child can be judged in numerous ways, and each way can be justified. Yet, does it still make it right to end a life simply because it cannot feel? The embryo will soon become a baby, and once it has reached the point of birth, they are another human being. The very thing that we say is wrong to kill, and many would agree. However, if a man could not feel anything, his nerves are dysfunctional and he has no sense of touch anywhere on his body, then he would not notice if his caretaker stabbed him in the back. It's only wrong then because the man was conscious. Yet, let's go back to the embryo, the embryo is the predecessor to what we are now. It cannot feel, that is agreed upon, but it will. The mere fact that, in its future, it is known and accepted that it will be a person. Ending it when it cannot feel does not and should not remove the guilt of ending a life, it does not matter if it had no feeling, it is still death. The ending of life before it had a chance to live a life. Morally speaking, many would consider it wrong to leave the child after birth, but there are many who would be willing to take the child in and raise them, to give them the opportunity to be a part of the world. Abortion removes any possibility of that. The reason many get it done in the embryonic stage is because it is an accepted fact that the embryo cannot feel... but no one stops to realize that it is still alive. And that it is still the denying of that life to get an abortion simply because they do not feel they have responsibility or ability to care for the child. Let them be born, and then walk away. In that way, at least they were given the chance to live, and when compared to the morality of each decision, this one would be the most correct. Simply because it is allowance of life to proceed, regardless of ourselves. Argument of equality I agree that 100 embryos do not equal 1 five year old child. The child is yes, breathing and conscious. In the analogy my opponent presented, a burning building resulted in the individual picking the lesser of the two evils. And I agree, the 5 year old takes precedence. But in that situation, we choose what can feel and understand the current situation. In the clinics, that is not the case. Humans that alive and conscious right now take precedence over an embryo if a dilemma forces a decision of which survives right at that point. But when the only factor is your own guilt or irresponsibility, then where does the real situation exist? The situation that is forcing you to pick whether the embryo should be removed. The situation where abortion is the only logical choice. The embryo may not be conscious or able to reason or think or anything at the moment, but when there is nothing that is forcing a person to decide whether it is worth saving or not, then there exists no reason to abort it. The embryo is not equal to a conscious person when put in a situation of which is more important at the time, but when time is not a factor, then it should have the equal opportunity to experience life as a conscious being. Be it under the mother who gives birth to the child, the mother who adopts the child, the house that takes in the child, or the place that shelters the child. When no dilemma exists, then equality of life exists. But if something dire forced anyone's hand, then the embryo is the least destructive decision. But it's only in those situations, the situations that have yet to truly exist or be brought to light. The murder argument Abortion should not be legal, even in a stage of lack of consciousness. Not because it is murder on the degree of human brutality, but because it is the prevention of life. While in the embryonic stage, a person has yet to exist. So no, ending the possibility to become a person is not murder on the person. It is murder on life itself. It is murder in the most basic sense. Almost like the mindless squishing of an insect or the removal of a tree because it does not provide any shade. It is the ending of a life, regardless of how intellectually far it is, it is still life. And it is still death when that life is ended. Aborting a child in the embryonic stage of development is equivalent to throwing the egg of a chicken away. The bird inside is not conscious or developed to feel the pain, but it will never reach that point now. Same goes for the embryo of a human child, they may not feel the pain, know they are being killed, or ever find out. But that is only because we denied them the opportunity to ever become a person, to ever experience the feeling of life, to discover their own meanings. To abort an embryo is to deny the progress of life, it is to murder the opportunity and the future of the undeveloped child. I wish myself better luck in the rebuttals, and would again, like to comment my opponent. I await round 3.