Early abortion should be legal

Note: My opponent has not really addressed anything in my opening argument. They have only addressed things said in my rebuttals of their arguments. The right to life/right not to be killed as an absolute is false & not all killing is murder: My opponent states that "The logical point here still stands, even granting abortion kills something human, it does not NECESSARILY follow then that abortion is murder." I clearly disagree with that statement. That is why I spent my whole opening argument explaining why being human makes it not okay for the baby to be killed. My opponent literally ignored everything I had to say and then keeps repeating the same line. Then they claim that I agree with them about that statement. But that is not quite true. I agreed that there were times that it was okay to kill a human. A person who murders someone does loose their right to life. But I never agree that killing an innocent baby was okay. I mean, the embryo has done nothing wrong in any case so I don't see how my opponent sees the death of the child as valid. Then my opponent states "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 don't see how this is the case. I made an argument for why killing the baby/embryo would be murder and it was never responded to. On the other hand, my opponent has made no justification as of to why the abortion should not be considered murder. Bodily rights/autonomy: My opponent says "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." My whole point was that my opponent said that people decide what rights people have. This is a big problem for him since people also includes the rapists and the kidnappers. They can't objectively establish rights and this causes their argument to fall apart. My point was that the embryo or whatever stage the baby is in is not doing any attacking. The rapist is! So I don't understand why we must punish the baby for the sins of the rapist. God given rights: They say that "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." Okay fine. I will play along here. Why is the mother the only human who gets bodily rights? Why does the right to life and the bodily rights of the baby get ignored? My opponent then says "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. " I am sure it could. But that would all come down to which God is the right one. Although, like I already mentioned, I don't think there is a God that allows abortion. Since my opponent hasn't supplied a such God, their argument fails. Then they say "Con and Pro-lifers don't have a monopoly on claims of God given rights." Who said we did? But my opponent originally argued that rights come from people. Now that they see that that position fails, now they are buying into the "rights endowed by God." 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." But all my opponent has presented are assertions about what rights we have. My opponent even seems to understand that rights can only be objectively established by a God. "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." My point was that objective rights could only exist with the existence of a God. My opponent seems to agree since they didn't provide any other way the rights could exist objectively. That said, they still acknowledge that women has objective rights such as bodily ones and etc...So how can my opponent acknowledge the existence of objective rights but not the source that endowed them? It is literally like they are acknowledging the book but not the author. So basically, my opponents asserts that we have rights. But at the same time they say humans decide what rights we have. I showed why that doesn't work. Then my opponent seems to acknowledge that rights can only exist with a God. As for the quotes from Carlin and Harris, they are emotional appeals and they don't actually discredit anything I have said. My argument was that objective rights could only come from a God. The fact that children suffer doesn't disprove anything. And besides, I find that to be a very ironic example since my opponent is arguing for abortion. "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." And again, the big problem with this is that the rapist gets to decide what rights we have as well. So my opponent literally has no argument here. A case for unequal value: "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." Well, our rationality would also be compromised seeing a five yea old screaming in a burning house. That was the whole point to my rebuttal. "This is because whether they want to admit it or not, not all human organisms have equal value." Another assertion with no support. Again, i spent my whole opening argument that being human means to have the right to life. My opponent still has not responded to it. If early abortion is murder (reducto argument): I don't know why my opponent gets so emotional here. I see the early stage of the child as a baby. My whole thing about the death penalty was that not everyone agrees that it should be used at all. And I even said that in some cases, it would be okay to put the women to death. But I never a specific circumstance. "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." Again, my opponent only focuses on rape cases...and I think that is a problem. That said, I never said anything about rape cases. I said that I think that women should be put to death in some cases. But I never really went into specific details because I don't think I have to. Not everyone agrees that murder should be punished by death. Personhood: Again, my whole opening argument disproved the alien objection. Not enough characters...but I do thank my opponent for the debate. It has been fun.