Early abortion should be legal

I thank Jerry947 for their opening argument.Opening commentsCon when talking about abortion leaves one important and I think fatal for their position variable out of their arguments and moral equation, the interests & rights of the pregnant woman. It may come as a surprise to some pro-lifers but a woman becoming pregnant does not strip her of any and all rights, especially rights concerning the use of one owns body, rights even pro-lifers take for granted for themselves.Alot of what Con has to say is very general, eg right to life, value of humans, as such these things could even be accepted for my side of the debate and in such a general sense do nothing to refute early abortion should legal.Con would have to explain, define and more importantly justify such things that directly force one to conclude early abortion should not be allowed, I maintain Con has failed to do so, & suffice to say I am not going to let Con just presuppose that having an early abortion is murder.Freedom not restricted unless justifiedTo put this another way, if we are going to stop people from doing X, then we need to examine if we have good reason to do so.The right to life/right not to be killed as an absolute is false & not all killing is murderCon does agree that killing can be justified. Con remarks about murdering babies, well for one, by definition murder is wrong, secondly we are talking about human organisms in the embryonic period of pregnancy not babies. The logical point here still stands, even granting abortion kills something human, it does not NECESSARILY follow then that abortion is murder.Bodily rights/autonomy (the violinist analogy)Con has an interesting counter argument here, just reject any such bodily rights, I think Cons position is untenable. For starters I did make the argument that rights derive from our own interests/desires, but more importantly taking Cons denial approach means rape, kidnapping people and taking a kidney have not done something wrong, since there was no bodily rights to be violated in the first place."A case in point, if Adrian has a negative right to life against Clay, then Clay is required to refrain from killing Adrian; while if Adrian has a positive right to life against Clay, then Clay is required to act as necessary to preserve the life of Adrian." [1]Taking a kidney against some ones will is especially justified on Cons view cause according to them we & others have a positive right to life.So Con has two choices here, either accept we do have such a bodily rights or double down into Cons brave new world where such bodily rights are denied and let the rapeing and theft of kidneys begin.Lastly, if Con wants to just reject such bodily rights as mere assertions and not objectively established then the same can be done to their right to life (how ever that right is defined) assertions and arguments that operate on such an assumption.Allow me to add more to justify such bodily rights/autonomy(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 period The argument here is that rights most plausibly derive from interests/desires and in the early stages of pregnancy the human organism has no such interests.Unjust burden argumentRecall the argument here as..."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 & disproportionate 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."Con merely assumes that abortion is murder, I maintain they have not established that, thus has no counter here.A case for unequal value(5 year old child vs 100, 3day human embryos)Yes they are human in the genetic sense, all human organisms are human in that sense, Contra any implications from Con that I suggest otherwise.Cons sink hole scenario doesn't show what I think Con assumes it shows. Change Cons sink hole scenario to where all children are strangers, you can either save 4 or them or 1 but not all 5. Well that's pretty easy save the 4 over the 1.In Cons examples it's your own child at stake, and yes we may take such action, even saving our own 1 child over 4 not our own child, this only shows that when our emotions & something more primal is influencing our decision our rationality gets compromised, but take such a situation where rationality is not comprised we save 4 children over 1 & save one 5 year old over 100, 3 day human embryos.This is because not all human organisms have the same value.If early abortion is murder (reducto argument)Contra Con I did argue that either long imprisonment or death sentence are the options here, so the argument does hold up.Yes in this argument the women referred to are those who knew what they were doing and do it freely.Con bites the bullet here, so there position that abortion even early abortion is murder and thus what should be done to such women is consistent as Con says..."I agree that she should be put to death." but that doesn't mean it is correct.Consider the woman who was raped, then shortly after say 2-3 weeks takes an abortion pill thus causing an abortion. In Cons world she should die now, but the rapist gets to live albeit after doing some jail time. This is absurd, and it's absurd because it's the logical outcome of operating on the false premise that early abortion is murder.Consequences of abortion being made illegalCon points out that we can't make things legal just because some people will do them if we make them illegal. But that isn't the argument here, the argument specially refers to the price that women pay by having abortion being made illegal.That price is serious injury and death.Personhood Does mere genetic humanity grant one personhood ? I argue no.Firstly, it grants person hood on a morally irrelevant property.Secondly, it's speciesistThirdly, consider we are visited by self-aware, intelligent aliens, we would recognize them as persons based on such & not deny them as persons cause they lacked genetic humanity.I look forward to Cons reply.Sources [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.debate.org...