Early abortion should be legal

Cons Main Contention: Abortion is Murder This was completely glossed over. Freedom Not Restricted Unless Justified: My opponent is correct here. The Right to Life: My opponent brings up a quote that I said. "Keep in mind, I will authorize abortions in situations where the mother will die otherwise." They say that I am not supporting the right to life here. This is not true. The case that I bring up is a tragic accident where two people will die unless one of them is killed. I am supporting the right to life, not denying it. Bodily Rights Argument: The right to life is the ultimate moral imperative for a government to maintain. After that follows liberty. After that comes the pursuit of happiness. When my opponent states that I "opens up the flood gates where people can have all sorts of things done to their body against their will in the name of saving others lives.", I'm really not doing that. Organ donations are a thing that happen quite frequently in today's world. Given the circumstances, the one or two cases this applies to are quite slim. Even when taken to an extreme where there are no organs easily available, my opponent's argument doesn't apply. Such a world would have so much chaos inside of it that the world could not cope. No Conflict of Rights: Let me bring up an analogy. If there is a butterfly chrysalis, would you destroy it because it was no longer alive? You wouldn't. After it came out of the chrysalis, it would be on its way, leaving no permanent impact on you. Unjust Burden Argument: It is not an unjust burden. When you are in a situation where you are the only one who can protect a human life, than it is your responsibility to do so. If you were watching one person stab another and you had a tazer in one hand and a gun in the other, you wouldn't shoot the guy being stabbed, you would taze the guy with the knife. A Case For Unequal Moral Equivalence: (5 yr. old child vs 100, 3 day old embryos) You're attack on my counter to the analogy applies realism not inherent to the analogy. If that is present, than I will say that all of the 3 day old embryos are already dead. Therefore I help the kid and clean up the mess. (Mother v Fetus) Let me set this up with one thing first. The situation you bring up right now doesn't exist. There is no situation in which a fetus can be removed from a mother and still survive. This point is irrelevant. As for the argument about the abortion of dead eggs, that isn't immoral, that's called cleanup. If Abortion is Murder: When you say that you never talked about endless rows of cells, I want to bring up this quote: "endless row cells of women who had an abortion in the embryonic stage." That is a straw man. As for the rapist argument, yes, if abortion is murder, than it should be punished like murder. That's why you don't have abortions. Two wrongs don't make a right. Everybody is a victim of something. You can't use that victimization as justification. That is a failure of any system. You can use that victimization to better rehabilitate those in need of rehabilitation, but you can't ever use victimization as a reason to not rehabilitate. Cons: Negative Utilitarianism: 1) Bodily Autonomy - Covered in the above section 2) Prevention of Risks and Suffering - This doesn't take precedence over death. As for the idea that pregnancy leads to death, yes it does. However, in those cases, abortion comes to late to be helpful. 3) When you talk about people suffering from these diseases, we have to have their consent to put them out of their misery. Otherwise, that's called forced euthanasia (synonyms include: execution, murder, immoral, etc...) 4) Making abortion illegal doesn't stop women. This is also true of murder. We shouldn't facilitate either crime. We wouldn't want the murderer to have less chance of the crime blowing up in his face. 5) This is true, but that puts money over lives. As for the children themselves, they have to choose whether or not their life is worth living. Otherwise, you guessed it, we have forced euthanasia. Personhood & RIghts: The argument that I'm wrong when I say that "1-5 shouldn't be a test of humanity because it applies to literally almost all other organism on earth." is false. The only reason provided is that humanity is not personhood. This is true. Let me restate the argument. 1-5 shouldn't be a test of personhood, because it applies to literally almost all other organisms on earth. A sea horse is not a person, but it fits all five criteria. As for this beauty: "This sense of self is critical to our status as persons. In fact, philosophers often use the terms self and person interchangeably: a capacity for self-awareness is necessary for full personhood. One has a sense of self if one is able to entertain first-person thoughts, and if one possesses first-person knowledge.", I would like to point out one significant flaw. I can't scientifically prove that "one is able to entertain first-person thoughts". This is an impossibility that has plagued people forever. We can prove that a person has electric signals in the brain, but, as of yet, we can't use this to prove anything about first person knowledge or thought. Therefore, the genetic test is the only test that can viably stand on its own, because I can prove that I have human DNA, and I know that I have first person thoughts and knowledge, and I can prove that others have human DNA, and I appreciate whole-heartedly that I was not aborted.