Restricted abortion should be legal

I thank Sengejuri for their opening argument.Freedom not restricted unless justifiedI take it Con agrees here.The right to life as an absolute is untenableCon does seem to agree that one can't use the right to life in the absolute sense to justify forced continuation of pregnancy.Bodily rights argument (the violinist analogy)Implied non consent - I think Con has it backwards here concerning contraception and consent to pregnancy, if some one goes out of their way to use contraception obviously not only are they not consenting they are taking active steps to prevent pregnancy, that sounds like a big we don't consent to me.Prior consent does not mean consent can't be withdrawn laterPresumably Con means in their kidney analogy you are hooked up to the other person, in that case Con seems to just assert that since you consented this means you lose any bodily rights/choice to disconnect. Firstly this is just assumed and not justified. I challenge Con to justify this.Secondly there is an argument that consent given of ones own body doesn't negate bodily rights/choice later on. Consider a woman who tells a man at 11am she consents to have sex with him at 7pm. At 7pm the mans turns up, the woman claims sorry got a headache. Since the woman gave prior consent can the man now force her to have sex ? has she lost any right to choose to not have sex cause of prior consent ? is rape now justified in this case ? of course not.The logical point being, previous consent to use ones body does not justify that consent can't be withdrawn later on.Violinist analogy (revised, prior consent given)Consider the violinist analogy with some variables changed. A violinist is in hospital & dying. There is no other way for the violinist to live unless you and ONLY YOU are hooked up to him for 3 months, after the 3 months are complete the violinist can live without being hooked up to you. You consent and are hooked up. After 2 weeks you say sorry, I just can't do this anymore. If you are unhooked death isn't probable, it is certain for the violinist.The question is thus, do you have the right to disconnect ? do you have a choice ? Are other people justified to take away your freedom to maintain you hooked up to the violinist for the remanding 2 months & 2 weeks ?I maintain that the fundamental point is the same, you can choose to disconnect. Consent objection vs right to life The consent/rape objection is problematic, cause the right to life argument is based on it being so fundamental that it can't be applied or rejected on the basis of whether said organism is the product of sexual consent or rape. This would put the subjects right to life or absent right to life at the mercy of how it came into existence..................an untenable position.Since Con has gone to the consent/rape objection they can't also use a more fundamental right to life argument in order to justify forced continuation of pregnancy.Pregnant Women vs Billionaires (Dis-proportionality argument)Contra Con this isn't an analogy, this is the actual state of affairs. I don't dispute that billionaires should have such rights and freedoms, either does Con.Con makes the point of intentional killing vs letting some one die, then concluding "BIG DIFFERENCE"...............fair enough.Thinking, feeling, self aware humans vs the human organism in the early stages of pregnancy that are absent such things "BIG DIFFERENCE".Rights and freedoms are such that billionaires can't be forced to give up most of their wealth to save self-aware, suffering humans, how much so then that a woman can't be forced to continue a pregnancy to save a non self ware, non suffering human organism.The argument stands.3 day human embryo is not morally equivalent to a human 5 year old childCon doesn't really engage with the argument here. Con would rather just make charges of games, straw-man, coin flips and I can do that too.Ironically for all of Cons red herrings they never even disputed that you are justified to save one 5 year old girl over 100, human embryos, which more plausibly as I argue is due the factors such as self awareness, intelligence, ability to feel pain.Con merely claims it fails, but did he actually show that ? I maintain Con did not.If abortion is murder (reducto argument)Contra Con for this debate and the outside world the fact of legal abortion being available hangs tenuously as a never ending onslaught of Pro-lifers chip away at availability of abortion to women, such as TRAP laws. [1]Contra Con it isn't just me who views this as absurd, that woman who have had a abortion should be doing hard time for murder. Interestingly Con never actually disputed this is where the initial premise that abortion (in the embryonic period) is murder gets you.Con remarks..."If abortion were to become illegal, obviously there would be consequences for breaking the law, as is the case with all laws. I fail to see how this is controversial."Women, all women past/present/future who have or will have an abortion are equivalent to murders, thus the long/life imprisonment and even death penalty consequence of such women. Con doesn't see what all the fuss is about.Cons Law consistency argumentLets see if we can help Con out where in regard to the allowing abortion vs texting driver causing loss of pregnancy is manslaughter...."cannot be justified with logic"1) The law could be wrong in regard to the texting driver being charged with manslaughter/murder. Eg error in definitions/application/reasoning etc etc.2) Even if it is not, as shown in the bodily autonomy argument, the woman has the right to disconnect, that doesn't apply in the texting driver hypothetical.Con may not like it, but it can be reconciled logically speaking.Cons Life argument ?One word come to mine when reading Cons contemplation's on life, confusing. Maybe what Con has in mind is when does a unique human organism begins to exist, but his own source answers that question...""fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed" [3]Personhood & RightsCon makes the point that he could use other criteria (but didn't), and yes I agree, different criteria will draw the line differently between person vs non person, which one has to do once some one starts talking about personhood, neither side of the argument can get out of that dilemma.The criteria of 3) Self-motivated activity as I understand it and argue for isn't just oh look it's moving by it's self. Rather it's the intentionality of moving what ever because you made the decision to do so, beyond say a reflex action, or mere response to stimuli.So no, criteria [3] has not being met, nor [1].Is Con a non person when Con goes to sleep or is unconscious according to the [1-5] criteria ? no, the argument is based on current capacity of X (eg self awareness) not necessary that X is currently exemplified. Being severely handicapped isn't the issue here, it's the criteria of [1-5], being severely handicapped doesn't necessarily mean some one doesn't possess any of the relevant current capacities.Contra Con, recall the point about self awareness being crucial to personhood. If Con rejects self awareness as relevant are you open to the idea that rocks could be persons ? they have no such capacity for self awareness.Also recall the point about how we would recognize intelligent, self aware aliens as persons based on said current capacities. Con doesn't seem to dispute that such aliens are persons.If you do reject such criteria yet recognize such aliens as persons, then on what basis do you do so ?I look forward to Cons reply.Sources [1] http://www.reproductiverights.org...[2] O'Rahilly, Ronan and Muller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 8-