Restricted abortion should be legal

I thank X15 for their opening argument.Freedom not restricted unless justifiedCon seems to agree with the point here and seeks to establish that abortion is murder in the embryonic period to justify not allowing such an abortion by a pregnant woman.HumanityCon asserts that I deny the humanity of human things. I talk about things like 3 day HUMAN embryos, HUMAN organism, HUMAN fetus, embryonic period in HUMANS begins at fertilization, etc etc.As such dis-regard all claims where Con says or implies otherwise.Cons: Innocence Cons claims the human organism in the embryonic period is innocent, I agree & disagree, it depends in what sense you talking about innocence.1) Innocent in the sense of being something which has not done any immoral action.2) Innocent in the sense of being a moral agent making choices who has chosen not to take an immoral action.The human organism embryonic stage is innocent in the first sense, but then again so is dirt & rocks. The human organism is clearly not innocent in the second sense.The right to life/right not to be killed as an absolute is untenableRecall how I here that..."The logical point is that any anti-abortion argument that is built upon such an absolute right to life/right not to be killed has at it's foundation a false premise and can be rejected as such, not to mention the double standard of selectively applying it in the case of pregnancy to deny abortion rights."Con doesn't deny there can be situations where killing a human is justified, BUT that can only be the case if the right not to be killed is NOT absolute. Contra Con we are not going to just throw out this contention. Also consider a pregnancy where complications are such that either the woman or fetus can live, but not both, and fail to act means both die. I argue that most if not all, will choose the life of the mother over the fetus and it is the right decision to make, once again showing the right not to be killed in the ABSOLUTE sense is false.The logical point is the fact that abortion kills something human does in of it's self justify that it is a wrongful act/murder.Bodily rights argument (the violinist analogy)Recall here the argument that..."Like wise it is argued, a pregnant women can take action to be unplugged from the embryo inside of her, she should not be forced to continue with her pregnancy anymore than some one plugged into the violinist to keep them alive, such is yours & hers bodily rights/freedom."Con wrongly asserts that I assume a woman should not be allowed an abortion after the embryonic period, as their counter arguments that rests upon that false assumption don't apply here.I am open to the idea that maybe abortion should be more restricted in the later stages, but being open to that possibility is not the same as just assuming it, I would need to see arguments in support such a thing that can withstand critical scrutiny.It seems to me that Con doesn't deny that you can choose to be unplugged from the violinist.No conflict of rights/interests in the embryonic periodRecall how I argued that...In the embryonic period the human organism has no current capacity to have an active or ideal desire, an ideal desire being a desire which would exist had there not being a cognitive distortion. The human organism has no such capacity in the embryonic stage as there is no organized cortical brain activity,"Contra Con such an interest does not exist, since to have such an interest/desire requires a certain mental capacity, a capacity that does not exist in the human organism at such an early stage.Unjust burden argumentRecall how I argued that..."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 dangers of pregnancy in order to save less, non thinking, non feeling, non self aware, human embryos."Con wrongly assumed that I pre-supposed that a woman should have no choice after the embryonic period. A case for unequal moral equivalence(5 year old vs 100, 3 day human embryos)Con doesn't seem to deny that one should save the 5 year old over 100, 3 day human embryos.(Mother vs Fetus)Also consider a pregnancy where complications are such that either the woman or fetus can live, but not both, and fail to act means both die. I argue that most if not all, will choose the life of the mother over the fetus. This only makes sense if the moral value of different human organisms is not equal. (Spontaneous abortions)Also consider that about 60% of zygotes do not survive to term, up to half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, often unknown to the pregnant woman. No one considers spontaneous abortion of zygotes or blastocysts as morally significant. The logical point here being that not all things that are human organisms have equal moral value.If abortion is murder (reducto argument)Recall here how I argued that if you accept the abortion is MURDER premise and apply it consistency and follow it's logic where it gets you, mass incarceration of woman (death penalty where applicable) who have had an abortion in the embryonic period.Con doesn't deny the logic here, Con just doesn't want to talk about it.Allow me to add weight to the absurdity here.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. (Hey if abortion is murder he ain't wrong).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) than the rapist. 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.I still maintain the premise that abortion is murder in the embryonic period is more plausibly false.Personhood & rightsCon says..."This contention is non-factor as we can apply that to humans outside the womb and find that we should terminate humans with such criteria."Con thinks this is wrong because they are assuming that any and all human organisms make it a person because of its humanity, I don't think that is tenable for the following reasons....1) It's makes person hood dependent on a morally irrelevant property, eg whether something has human dna.2) It's specisist, humans declaring that humanity (in the genetic sense) is what makes a person, excludes everything else from personhood that doesn't have human dna.Also recall my argument that we would recognize self-aware, intelligent aliens as persons based on those characteristics and not deny them personhood cause they lacked human dna.Con doesn't seem to disagree we should recognize such aliens as persons on such characteristics.Also consider..."This sense of self is critical to our status as persons. In fact, philosophers often use the terms self and person interchangeably: a capacity for self-awareness is necessary for full personhood. One has a sense of self if one is able to entertain first-person thoughts, and if one possesses first-person knowledge." [1]The argument here still is that the human organism in the embryonic period is not a person and thus does not have a right to life (however that right is defined).I look forward to Cons reply.Sources[1] http://socrates.berkeley.edu...