So what? Whether or not a fetus deserves to proselitize some hazy terminology perhaps pertaining to some vague, extristic predetermined notion of "life" or "personhood" is NOT unctuous or even germane to the abortion debacle; per contra, the brouhaha is entirely equidistant to one inperitive inquiry: which is stronger, the personhood of the begetter or that of the begetted?

Since you have subscribed to the veryily deplorable but igniomouosly samey method of censoriously gagging any perspective that does not run ecclestesically congruent to your fasticious one-trick shetland pony that you have decided to term a worldview depite the fact that there is risible, extant proof that it is nothing but mealy and stillborn-- such is the erudite quantity of bupkis predilectations that you have contorted into its metaphorical cloaca--, I am going to use this post as a brusque summa of my arguments, as I have been coaxed into neurotic fear that I will be forced into tautology, such is the brevity of the corrospondence.

Incumbently, my valedictorial argument is that our entire system of aspirational lactations that we have vaguely defined as a demoncracy rely on one simple axiom: that we each have a right of defence, a right to solemnly apprehend any who dares impair our equilibrium. The parental embodiment and the foetal embodiment each have conflicting interests and therefore it is their scientific right, almost their naturalistic duty, to brawl over docility. If a foetus's right to life-- I am not denying that it exists, I am merely saying that it is barely potent-- interrupts that of a mother, the foetus has commited an indelible wrong that should morally be resolved with the appropriate finesse. You, on the other hand, want to assign preponderant rights to the unborn foetus simply because of your own altrustic belief system.

My progeny to that argument is that if the mother gives the foetus to perpertually command her body, this consent can also be vetoed. For me, the relationship between mother and foetus is like the unilatterally fragile relationship between a government and the plebarians it commands; if the foetus starts to erode the mother's liberty and fraternity until only a stochastic iota of pastoral flotsam is still a utensil, then that foetus is totalitarian and may be abscounded.

Lastly, albeit alarmist as it seems, we must consider the conseptualisation that prohibiting a woman from having an abortion is lionised rape. Pregnancy is essentually a medical prognosis brought on by sexual congress, and if any aspect of sex is nonconsensual then that sexual conduct can be declared to be rape.