Abortion in the embryonic period should be legal

I'll jump straight into the first argument. Freedom not restricted unless justifiedI think this is axiomatic. It's not just an issue of being free or wanting freedom or arguably freedom being necessary for well being, even if rejected on those grounds to argue otherwise is self defeating, since you presuppose the freedom to argue as your starting point if you were to even try that non freedom should be the starting point rather than freedom. Bodily rights argument (the violinist analogy)Judith Jarvis Thomson asks us to consider the following. .. "You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. "The question is thus, do you have the right to unplug ? should you be forced to be kept plugged in if you choose you don't want to ? I know of no anti abortion person who has argued that you can't unplug your self, even if it means certain death for another person. Like wise it is argued, a pregnant women can unplugged the embryo inside of her, she should not be forced to continue with her pregnancy anymore than some one plugged into the violinist to keep them alive. Pregnant women vs everyone else when lives are at stakeThe pro life/forced continuation of pregnancy advocates insist their cause is just & noble as they are out to save lives. But notice these people themselves don't justify anything and everything when it comes to saving lives, lives of post born humans who can think, feel and are self aware. You would be hard pressed to find such a person who would demand that we force billionaires to give up nearly all their wealth leaving them with say a few million dollars (still leaving them richer than most on the planet) and using those funds to save people lives. So here is the logical point, if rights and freedoms are such that we can't force the billionaires of the world to give up all their wealth except a few millions to save thinking, feeling, self aware humans, then it would be laughable to then argue that we are justified to force women to give up more, their bodily rights and the dangers of pregnancy in order to save non thinking, non feeling, non self aware, human embryos. Human 3 day human embryo is not morally equivalent to a 5 year old childConsider the following, you arrive at a burning building, behind one door are 100, 3 day human embryos, behind another a 5 year old child. Who do you try to save first ? Most if not all will try to save the girl, but why ? if a 3 day human embryo is morally equivalent to say a 5 year old child then it is simple arithmetic, try to save the 100 hundred all things being equal before you try to save the 1. But as I argue they are not equal, the 5 year old child not only trumps one 3 day human embryo, it even trumps one hundred. But why ? It is kind of hard to pin down but it has something to do with the fact that the child can feel pain, is self- aware, can think, things that do not apply to a 3 day human embryo. AntinatalismSchopenhauer asks. .. "If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist? Would not a man rather have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence, or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood? [2]Life in this world can be cruel, can be brutal and there will be suffering. Of course how much suffering, how intense and how long are variables, and consider also no one gets out of here alive. By bringing a child into this world you are taking a gamble, and unfortunately all the good intentions in the world can't protect them from the sufferings of this world, sufferings which for the foreseeable future will have no end. As such the argument is at the very least a pregnant woman should be able to have an abortion in the embryonic period in order to prevent another person being bought into this world to suffer. What about the right to life ? If some one wants use a right to life argument, obviously at the very minimum they must mean this to mean that something has the right not to be killed. Also presumably not everything that lives has a right to life, so why think that the right to life applies in the early stages of pregnancy ? the most common claim here from the moment of conception a person exists who at least has the right not to be killed. But even granting that all persons have a right not to be killed why think that say a 3 day human embryo is a person ? this will depend on what you think the dividing line is between a person and non person which is a very contentious issue in of it self. Warren argues that in order for something to be a person they must have the following consciousness and in particular sentience, the capacity to reason, self-motivated activity, the capacity to communicate messages, and lastly, the presence of self-concepts [3]Under this criteria a person does not exist in the embryonic stage of pregnancy and thus no person with a right to life (not to be killed) exists. I look forward to Cons reply. Sources[1] . http://spot.colorado.edu...[2] Schopenhauer, Arthur. Studies in Pessimism: The Essays. The Pennsylvania State University, 2005, p. 7. [3] Warren, Mary Anne. The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion. 1973. On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion. Vol. 57. La Salle, Illinois: The Monist, 1973. pp. 97-105.