Abortion in the early stage of pregnancy should be legal

I thank Dan for their reply.Reply to Cons commentsAlot of what Dan has to say, even if accepted doesn't justify that abortion should be illegal. Maybe Dan is right, maybe abortion isn't the "best way", but I am not arguing for the purpose for this debate that abortion is the best way, but rather it should be legal, and more importantly that a pregnant woman in the early stage of pregnancy should be able to choose whether to continue or not.Also considering this debate is more restricted to the early stage of pregnancy, I reject that abortion in such instances kills a "baby", but rather a human organism.I will now move on and make arguments in support that abortion in the early stage should be legal.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 try and argue that freedom should not be the starting point.As such anyone who wants to restrict freedom, like denying a woman the choice to continue a pregnancy needs justification that can hold up under critical scrutiny.The right to life/right not to be killed as an absolute is false & not all killing is murderThe right to life/right not to be killed is often invoked as justification for not allowing abortion, killing is wrong, abortion kills, ergo abortion is wrong/murder.Notice those who use such reasoning don't them self believe in the right not to be killed in the ABSOLUTE SENSE, the most common view where killing, even killing unquestionably human persons is justified is self defense (or some variation of). Then we have issues of drone strikes, war, dropping the A bomb, etc etc.The logical point being even granting abortion kills something human, it does not NECESSARILY follow then that abortion is murder because something human is killed, and thus the most common argument that abortion is murder cause something human is killed is not justified.Bodily rights/autonomy(The limits to the right to life in the context of ones own body)Consider Judith Jarvis Thomson's bodily rights argument via the violinist analogy [1]. In this analogy you are kidnapped in order to keep some violinist alive by having your body connected to theirs so your kidneys can filter poisons out from the violinist, If you were to unplug from the violinist they will die.I know of no anti-abortion person who says that you can't choose to disconnect in the violinist analogy, as rejecting such a bodily rights/autonomy means everyone would live in danger of say a kidney being taken against their will if it could save some one else. Like wise it is argued, a pregnant women can take action to be unplugged from the embryo inside of her.What this shows among other things, even granting a "right to life", there are limits as to what said right can be used to justify. The right to life does not grant a person the use of some one else body to keep them-self alive against the other persons will.(Inalienability of the will & your own body)Grape argues as follows..."If I agree to take you on an airplane ride under the obligation that I will not "ask you to leave" at 20,000 feet, I cannot change my mind and toss you out because I have given up my ownership of the airplane to that extent. With bodies, this is not the case: it is not possible for me to give up control of my body. For instance, I cannot contract the use of my arm to you because my control over it is totally and uniquely mine. Our ability to exert or will over our bodies prevents us from ever being forced to uphold such a contract. If I agreed to work for you for a year for free and then change my mind, the most you can do is demand material property as compensation; you cannot enslave me without aggressing against my rights""In using a mother"s body against her will, a fetus carries out exactly this kind of aggression. It may have the rights of an adult, but surely we would not permit an adult to use another person"s body as a life support system against her will. Such action would warrant violent self-defense even if it were carried out without malign intent. The mother therefore may remove a fetus from her body if it is violating her rights in this fashion. Neither she nor anyone else is bound by the fetus"s inability to survive independent of the mother; it does not have a positive right to life." [2]No conflict of rights/interests in the embryonic periodThe argument here is that rights most plausibly derive from interests/desires. We support general rules of not killing cause of our interest/desire in going on living, we support property rights cause we don't want our stuff taken from us, we support freedom of speech, etc etc. In the embryonic period the human organism has no current capacity to have an active or ideal desires, as there is no organized cortical brain activity.David Boonin writes..." organized cortical brain activity refers to electrical activity in the cerebral cortex of the sort that produces recognizable EEG readings. As I noted in Section 3.5.3, there is no evidence to suggest that this occurs prior to approximately the 25th week of gestation, and ample evidence to suggest that it does begin to occur sometime between the 25th and 32nd week" [2]Unjust burden/double standard of forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy in the early stageSometimes right/interests conflict and we seek to manage such conflicts such as imposing various burdens upon people.Never the less those burdens have to be justified and be proportional to interest/conflict concerned. For example we don't consider it an unjust burden to demand & enforce that people don't poison the water supply, but we would consider it an unjust burden to force people to give up a kidney, even if it would save the life of a self aware, intelligent, suffering, human.Now consider the burden being argued to be imposed on a pregnant woman from the moment of conception, that being she should be forced to continue the pregnancy even against her will, incur the pain/suffering of said pregnancy and be subject to the risks of complication that can occur in a pregnancy, complications that can result in serious injury even death for the pregnant woman.So here is the logical point, if we are not justified to imposed a burden on billionaires of the world to give up all their wealth except a few million (still leaving them richer than most) to save thinking, feeling, self aware, suffering, post birth humans, then it would be laughable & a double standard to then argue that we are justified to force women to give up more, their bodily autonomy and the sufferings & dangers of pregnancy in order to save less, non thinking, non feeling, non self aware, human embryos.If early abortion is murder (reducto argument)Consider a rapist, after raping a woman he tells her, if you end up pregnant and you have an abortion in the embryonic period your worse than I am, I am a rapist but you would be a murder.Also consider if such an abortion is viewed as murder the rapist gets convicted of rape, but following after is the woman who he raped is now in court because she had such an abortion and thus gets convicted of murder. The woman now will be doing more years (or death penalty where applicable) than the rapist. I argue that the early abortion is equivalent to murder premise is shown false, as when it is applied logically & consistently leads to absurdity. I look forward to Cons reply.Sources[1] http://spot.colorado.edu...[2] http://www.debate.org...[3] https://ethicslab.georgetown.edu...