Abortion in the embryonic period should be legal

Thanks Pro!Human Rights ArgumentPro has either misunderstood my argument or mischaracterized it in his response. P1: To intentionally kill an innocent human being is wrong.P2: Abortion kills innocent human beings.C: Abortion is wrong.To support this argument I showed that Pro conceded that the unborn are humans. I also showed that there is no difference between being human and a human being in 2 ways. The first was to show that if we are to have inalienable rights they must logically come into existence at the moment our lives begin, as an inalienable right cannot be gained or lost. Pro failed to even address this in his rebuttal.The other showed that personhood is a superset and not a subset of humanity. This did not limit personhood to humans, but rather that every human is a person. The Boethius definition that I presented was: A person is an individual substance that has a rational nature. A substance maintains its identity through change, which explains why we maintain our identity as the cells in our body and are replaced and while we age. This identity begins at fertilization and continues until we die. Thus the following could be considered persons: God(s) angels humansaliensself aware computers.I further showed that humanity has repeatedly denied personhood throughout history for selfish gains of one group against another group. Pro never refuted my argument that discrimination has not required that one be human (or other rational being) AND some other attribute. This other subjective attribute varies depending on which weak group the powerful was subjugating.As such my full argument still stands.Rebuttals to Pro's ArgumentsAntinatalismThis argument is irrelevant as Pro has admitted it is dependent on other arguments presented.Moral Equivalency Between Embryo and 5 Year Old ChildThis argument is really just an ad hominem attack. It attacks the character of the person instead of the moral nature of the embryo. I would react differently to a child dying in front of me than I would to reading about 5000 dying of famine. I argue that my personal emotional reaction has no bearing on the moral value of those 5000 children. Likewise, if I replaced Pro and his family for the embryos in the burning building and my wife for the 5 year old, would he argue that he and his family were not persons of equal moral value if I chose to save my wife instead? This shows the irrelevancy of this argument to the debate.Finally, he notes that this argument is based on his other personhood arguments "the argument refers to specific characteristics... those being things like intelligence, self awareness, and NOT say height, weight, looks, etc." This argument is irrelevant as it is based on personhood arguments.BillionairesThis is another meaningless argument. The moral obligations (or lack thereof) of the wealthy have nothing to do with the moral status of the unborn unless Pro is arguing that the wealthy have the right to murder other humans using giant versions of suction aspiration or suction curette procedures.Con's response to my noting the moral obligation of parents to provide for the needs of the children in their care was to say that the law I was quoting was unjust. So his counter-argument is that the most vulnerable in society (minors and the handicapped) should have no expectation that those in a position of responsibility should have to provide for their needs. Comparing this to abortion, would mean that parents have a right not provide for, and even actively murder, their children. Pro doesn't deny obligations of parents to their children, but instead is resorts to absurd arguments to in order to defend adults murdering their young.Pro then resorts back to the unborn child failing his personhood criteria. Yet again personhood is the crux of another argument - making it too is an irrelevant argument.Violinist AnalogyPro did not address my argument. I made a valid argument from Natural Law showing why there is a distinct difference as to why there is no obligation for the violinist to remain being hooked up versus the unborn having a natural right to care and protection from the mother.Pro does not seem to understand why using something according to its function is important. So I will explain:Let's say you bought a chair and sat down on it and it broke causing you to break your arm. You'd be justified in suing, because the chair failed to act according to its function. Let's say you stood on it to change a lightbulb and it broke causing a broken arm. Since a chair isn't meant to be stood upon there'd be no right to sue. If you used it to prop up the car so that you could change the oil and the chair broke causing the car to fall and kill you, not only couldn't you sue, but you'd be probably win a Darwin Award.This example shows why we naturally understand Natural Law and how it governs our interactions and law.To expand upon this natural use having meaning that we must follow I'll provide this example. Say that a mother with a newborn was trapped in a cabin by an avalanche. Let's assume that the mother didn't want to breastfeed for some reason. Would she be justified in not nursing and letting her child starve to death, or does the child not have some reasonable right to the mother's breast milk as the breasts and milk exist for that express purpose? I contend that one's bodily rights are created and limited by Natural Law.As a second example, the government has the right to draft and force you risk you health and life under certain circumstances. There are certain moral and societal obligations for both men and women.Pro makes one attempt to deny the validity of Natural Law by stating that natural function of the woman's body justifies rape. However, this argument is false for 2 reasons. First, it assumes that sex has only one purpose, which is procreation. However, Natural Law dictates that sex has 2 purposes, procreation and unity of the couple. This helps human couples form long term lasting relationships that protect anb nurture the children. Rape on the other hand causes the exact opposite in the woman - a fear and hate of the other. Thus rape violates natural law.The second reason is that rape is fundamentally an assault in the form of an unprovoked attack. While assault is an abuse that takes many forms, an unprovoked attack cannot be defended by Natural Law. This fully negates Pro's counter argument.As previously noted parents/guardians have an obligation to their children/charges. These are the corresponding obligations that exist to rights.I have provided additional explanations and examples showing how Pro's bodily rights argument fails for abortion.PersonhoodThis is ultimately Pro's only argument. Yet pro has made no reasonable attempt justify it. Pro quotes Warren, however Warren just claims that his criteria is just obvious. Not much of a substantiation.It sounds nice, but all it establishes is that Warren thinks his criteria is right without any additional justification.I have already shown that the identity of the human remains through change. I have also shown that the concept of changing inalienable rights is logically untenable. Pro also never contested that rationality develops from within and is not something external to the organism.Pro questions how one knows the embryo has a rational nature and claims that he can just as easily claim that there is no rational nature. However, a rational nature is easy to prove. Biogenesis. Humans beget other humans. The nature of humanity is to be rational creatures.How do we know that we have a rational nature? It is pretty simple. The normative state of humans is that of rational creatures. It is not random for humans to express rationality, instead it the our natural state. When a baby is born you don't guess whether this child will end up rational. It is expected to be a rational being because it is our nature. It isn't random, or chance.Another failed argument.I await Pro's final arguments.