Restricted abortion should be legal

I thank Con for their reply.Freedom not restricted unless justifiedCon does seem to agree, and thus seeks to provide justification to restrict abortion in the embryonic period.The right to life as an absolute is untenableCon says..."I am advocating a right to life specifically for unborn embryonic humans,"And that right to life can't be based on a more fundamental absolute right to life, which once again Con agrees is untenable.You sure do talk alot about this point for some one who supposedly agrees with it, I thinketh he protest too much.Bodily rights argument (the violinist analogy)Prior consent does not mean consent can't be withdrawn laterCon does admit that prior consent doesn't necessarily mean you can't withdraw later on concerning the use of your own body. Cons assertion of morally culpable/morally liable isn't it's self a justification or counter argument, rather for that they use another legal consistency argument, CPR law.For starters there is an argument that that law is bad law, I'm sure that good intentions exist behind such a law, BUT, the way to hell is paved with good intentions.When you start passing laws that effect Samaritan acts which impose various burdens/liabilities etc they act as a disincentive to help, and that's the last thing we want. Thus why various Good Samaritan laws get implemented. [1]As such the first argument here is to impose such a liability in the case of the violinist or CPR is bad law to begin with, thus the legal consistency argument is rejected on those grounds.But lets assume that the CPR law is good law, In the CPR example conflicting values/interests have being weighed up. We could grant that the burden imposed on the person doing CPR is minimal compared to interest of saving a self aware, intelligent human.Accepting this doesn't get you to forced continuation of pregnancy, cause as alluded to before, the burden imposed on the woman is much higher, and the interest in the early stages of pregnancy of a non self aware, non intelligent human organism is much lower.Tacit Consent Con still argues to well you knew it could happen therefore you consented to it, eg pregnancy, side effects of medication.There are all sorts of counters to this, well you went out late at night wearing that, you know that rapists exists, ergo you consented to rape.You knew that tree branches sometimes fall, and sometimes cause death, you went for a walk where there were trees, a branch fell and hit you and killed you, therefore you consented to that.So here is the logical point, Knowledge that if you commit Y, possibly outcome X, doesn't necessarily mean you consented to X by doing Y.Ergo, knowledge that sex can have an outcome of pregnancy, does not necessarily mean you consented to pregnancy.Pregnant Women vs Billionaires (Dis-proportionality argument)Cons remarks here are really aimed at countering the personhood criteria which I will get to later.But as far as this argument goes, Con doesn't dispute that billionaires can't be forced to give up most of their wealth to save self aware, intelligent, suffering, humans as such I maintain how dis-proportional it is to demand that women give up more to save less.3 day human embryo is not morally equivalent to a human 5 year old childCon wrongly asserts that my argument here is based on who you think is a person.The argument is that you would make your decision based on various criteria, such as self awareness, intelligence, ability to feel pain, ergo 5 year old child over 100, 3 day human embryos.Con asks..."But who would Pro pick if forced to choose between their child and their spouse and why? "Con is only helping my case here. In their case it's alot harder. Now change child to 100, 3 day human embryos, now it just became alot easier.I argue that Con/Myself would choose their spouse over 100, 3 day human embryos, once again more plausibly because the correct morally relevant factors are things like self awareness, intelligence, ability to fell pain. Change spouse to any self aware, intelligent human, I submit same result.Con may of thought their counter example weakened my argument here, it only emphasised the point more.If abortion is murder (reducto argument)Con puts forth the idea that abortion be illegal but not on the grounds of murder, something much less, something that one would pay a fine for, like a speeding ticket perhaps ?So why does Con do this ? either Con agrees abortion is murder is a false premise, or Con still wants to leave open the option that abortion is murder in which case his remarks are all one big distraction.I maintain that abortion is murder is a false premise and shown to be such when followed consistently and logically to it's absurd conclusion.Cons Law Consistency argumentCon makes the point that allowing abortion laws could be wrong, yes which is why I present argument more than just abortion is legal so argument is over. Like wise it's possible that the laws Cons use in their various arguments could be wrong. Con wanted a way to reconcile their claimed inconsistency, that's one way. And no, you can't dismiss this possibility just because it has not being proven.Secondly I made the argument about the difference between the pregnant woman and her bodily rights and the texting driver.Once again..."Con may not like it, but it can be reconciled logically speaking."Personhood & RightsContra Con, no we are not going to just accept Cons criteria of personhood on their say so.Reasons why Cons personhood criteria should be rejected.1) To give personhood to genetic humanity is on it's own an unsupported assertion and begs the question against a mental capacity criteria of personhood.2) It's speciesism, humans declaring their own "humanity" in the biological sense gives them personhood and thus excludes others who are not of that particular DNA set.3) If God exists, God or any non material entity that is self aware and intelligent not only is excluded cause it has no human DNA, but is excluded regardless of what material criteria you use for personhood. This is also a argument in support of the 1-5 mental criteria.4) Counter factual, what if things had turned out differently on earth ? what if humans took a slightly different evolutionary or even creationist path ? Something close to humans exist yet don't contain our specific human DNA as we know it. Cons criteria excludes such beings from personhood. Also again providing also another reason to accept the 1-5 criteria for personhood.5) If Con just claims, okey self aware aliens and Gods are persons too then it just becomes ad hoc, making it up as you go along, and frankly denying the obvious, your only including those things based on a capacity mental criteria yet won't admit as such cause your using a materialist human DNA criteria for personhood to deny abortion rights.My argument is that my 1-5 criteria for personhood is at least superior (not saying perfect) to Cons criteria, thus the conclusion of non personhood of the early human organism stands.Cons law consistency arguments self defeatingThe reasoning that Con has used for their arguments and counter arguments is to invoke some prior legal law, then argue that allowing abortion is inconsistent with that law and thus to make it consistent abortion should be illegal in the name of said legal consistency.This is ultimately self defeating, at least to those of us (maybe Con as well?) where abortion is legal in the embryonic period.Cause now we can turn such reasoning on Cons position, where abortion is legal in the embryonic period, to adopt Cons position that such abortion should be illegal is obviously contradictory to the previous laws which allow such an abortion. Thus to maintain legal consistency we must reject Cons position of abortion should be illegal.....................in the name of legal consistency of course.I thank Sengejuri for the debate.Sources[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...