Early abortion should be legal

I thank Jerry947 for their reply.Freedom not restricted unless justifiedAgreed.The right to life/right not to be killed as an absolute is false & not all killing is murderRecall here that..."The logical point here still stands, even granting abortion kills something human, it does not NECESSARILY follow then that abortion is murder."Con agrees with that point. Con wrongly implies that I have to prove that abortion is not murder & until I do so abortion is murder, this is burden shifting by Con. I maintain that Con has not being able to justify the abortion is murder premise.Contra Con I did argued against their positive right to life..."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."Maybe I wasn't clear enough, What I was getting at is that such a right is untenable, lest we live a world where our body & it's various parts can be used against our will to save some one elses life.Bodily rights/autonomy (the violinist analogy) Con doesn't deny such bodily rights, but rather objects that such rights have not being objectively established. Con can't have it both ways, either Con assumes such bodily rights exist that make rape & kidnapping wrong, in which case Con can't complain or Con continues to deny such bodily rights, in which case I argue that Con is forced to deny such bodily rights in order to justify their side of the debate.(Inalienability of the will & your own body)Con doesn't seem to dispute that ones own body isn't subject to the same restrictions as property, due to the fact that you have unique control over ones own body.Contra Con the self defense claim does hold up, the act of aggression alluded too need not be intentional.God given rightsNotice that even if such a God given right to life exists all my various points still stand. For example the right to life, that is to say the right not to be killed (God given) as an absolute is UNTENABLE, ergo killing something that is human is not NECESSARILY murder.But it gets worse for Con here, what about other God given rights ? What about the God given bodily rights ? I can just as easily assert we have God given bodily rights. Nothing changes here all we have done is just pushed back and dumped it on God.It gets worse again for Con, has Con established beyond mere assertion and implication that God given rights are such that a woman can't have an early abortion ? No.No doubt that Con can construe a God given right to life in such a way that logically entails that a woman can't have an early abortion, but such a God given right can also be construed in such a way that allows for an early abortion. Con and Pro-lifers don't have a monopoly on claims of God given rights.No conflict of rights/interests in the embryonic period Con points that rapists can just assert what rights we have, presumably in such a way to allow rape. Yes, just like a pro-lifer can just assert God given rights in such a way to force continuation of pregnancy against a woman's will. This is why we look to reason and consequence beyond just mere assertion of said rights.Cons position of God given rights is also implausible compared to the position of rights being derived from interests since Con has to presuppose among other things the existence of a right giving God.We have reasons to doubt the existence of such a right giving God.George Carlin remarks..."Personally, folks, I believe that if your rights came from God, he would have given you the right to have some food every day, and he would have given you the right to a roof over your head, God would have been looking out for you. " [1]Sam Harris argues...""Nine million children die every year before they reach the age of five. Picture an Asian tsunami of the sort we saw in 2004 that killed a quarter of a million people"one of those every 10 days, killing children only under five: that"s twenty-four thousand children a day, a thousand an hour, seventeen or so a minute. That means before I get to the end of this sentence, some few children very likely will have died in terror and agony." & "Any god who would allow children by the millions to suffer and die in this way and their parents to grieve in this way, either can do nothing to help them or doesn't care to." [2]So what's more likely to be true ? God given rights exist in such a way that don't allow a woman to have an abortion in the earliest stage of pregnancy OR Human beings make up God given rights in such a way to justify an agenda, in this case denying a woman an early abortion.I submit the latter, occams razor.The argument still 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."I maintain that Con has not being able to justify that abortion is murder thus has no counter here.A case for unequal value(5 year old child vs 100, 3day human embryos)Cons counter merely showed what happens when our rationality is comprised, eg our own child is involved. I maintain that without factors at play to compromise our rationality, even Pro-lifers would have a hard time saving 100, 3 day human embryos over one 5 year old child.This is because whether they want to admit it or not, not all human organisms have equal value.If early abortion is murder (reducto argument)Con knows damm well that I was talking about early abortion, yet, and NOT for the first time Con decided to segway into commentary on baby killing or something similar.Con when confronted with the absurdity of a raped women taking an abortion pill within a few weeks getting long term imprisonment or death penalty compared and contrasted to the rapist lesser sentence just doesn't want to deal with it.Contra Con if it is such a weak argument, why can't Con just simply refute it ? You know what is "weak", Con who wants to argue early abortion is murder but when it is pointed out where this gets Con just dismisses the analysis cause it's too damaging for their position. If you have to resort to such evasive tactics and disparaging remarks rather than deal with the actual argument, maybe it's time to reconsider your position.If Con just finds this too hard of a case, allow me to make it real easy for them, the early abortion is murder premise is false to begin with. As I argued before..."Again you can get out of this by just looking the other way, oh I don't want women in jail on a murder charge for abortions, but that is just an inconsistent position for the advocate that abortion is murder.Personhood Recall how I argued that genetic humanity does not grant something personhood, it grants person hood on a morally irrelevant property & it's speciesist.Con & Pro-lifers presumably would not deny person hood to self aware intelligent aliens. What this shows is that you can't justify person vs non person on whether something possess genetic humanity, other wise said aliens would be denied personhood.Con can assert that mere genetic humanity is so valuable and/or grants personhood, but that's all it is a mere assertion.I maintain we have good reason to reject that genetic humanity grants something personhood.I thank Jerry947 for the debate.Sources[1] http://lybio.net...[2]