This question references this post.
I’d like to point something out about your post. Yeah, technically, we’re all clumps of cells. The difference between an embryo and a fully developed human, though, is that an embryo is not viable outside the womb. My question is: why does the embryo, an undeveloped, non-sentient clump of cells, become more important than a pregnant person’s right to choose an abortion? If the pregnancy is endangering the pregnant person’s life, is abortion ok in your eyes?
An embryo, a living human being, is NOT more important than a pregnant person, but IS more important than a pregnant person’s right to choose an abortion. In other words, they have an EQUAL right to live.
The ability to make a choice does not override another person’s right to life. We are not allowed to make a choice to rape another person since that choice would violate that person’s bodily autonomy. For the same reason, a pregnant person should not be allowed to make a choice to kill her prenatal child. Taking that child’s life violates his or her bodily autonomy. There are two or more people involved in a pregnancy.
If a pregnancy is physically endangering the pregnant person’s life to the point of imminent death, then the pregnancy must be terminated while taking every possible action to save the prenatal person. There is no other logical option. If the mother were to die, so would the child. This is not an elective abortion as the mother wanted her child, she did not seek to intentionally destroy them.