Abortion is a reproductive right

Hiya!So to summarize,your argument is: that abortion is not a female entitlement in a free society...because it is an issue regarding another life. That allowance of...a reproductive right would be to claim a women has the right to take the life of a human at will. The fact that it lives inside her, for you, is immaterial. That taking a life, as a humanitarian is... fundamentally wrong or that no one, regardless of their situation, should be the arbiter of who should live and who should die. And finally, The debate ultimately boils down, for me, is whether what exists inside the womb is a living human, which I feel inclined to belief yes, yes it is. Although you concede that, Scientifically there is no agreement as to when a ball of cells becomes a human foetus. It seems then at the onset, that it all comes down to a value judgment which is defined appropriately as "An assessment of a person, situation, or event. The term is often restricted to assessments that reveal the values of the person making the assessment rather than the objective realities of what is being assessed. This means you are simply pro-life, that you value human life, or feel it should be preserved, above all, which is good, but regrettably, only subjective. So the argument is not about life, it is about values. Even if we could prove definitively that, at conception, the life is human, we still must admit that it is our values and values alone, that dictate how that life should proceed. This debate extends far beyond the womb. How children should be nurtured, e.g., their diet, education, future etc, varies from country to country, culture to culture, family to family, and person to person. People who are pro-choice simply reject what they feel is an over-extension of those values into the life of the individual. The facts are, human or not, a foetus is 100% dependent in the woman's body to exist. yes it is alive, but its life cannot be separated from her body. Upon implantation (adhering to the womb for nourishment) and several weeks after, any attempt to seperate this life from its attachment to her body is certain death. So the woman's ownership is pretty clear cut as embyonic transfers, post-implantation is not yet possible. What im saying is that nurture is very much so a choice, i.e., a willful act. It can never be an imposed obligation. Just as in nature, a mother decides because noone else can relieve her of this responsibility. If she sees no value in the life, or is unable to nurture it, it is lost. If we force her? Well..we have seen the failed results with unwilling mothers who do just enough to avoid prosecution... Lol. If she bears the child, then she is legally responsible for it until it is of age (unless she endures the stigma and gives it up), Also because nurture is subjective (kids don't come with instructions), to force one to mother a child, instantly places the child at risk, because it is totally dependent on someone who does not want it/the responsibility! Will we interrogate miscarriages to ensure they were not intentional? Did they eat everytime they were hungry, take their prenatal vitamins, voice every concern at doctors visits? The lengths we would have to go to secure the life of the child only indicate, how far we would be overreaching!!! So to take away this right would be to usurp control of her biology, or turn it into a liablity to their autonomy. Women did not choose their bodily capabilities, it is something that happens to us, whether we desire it or not...i.e.,we are born with it, but it does not wholly define us. We have the right to a life without childbearing. So just because we can, does not mean we must. Should we obligate a man to intercourse everytime his penis becomes erect? I know it is not a life, but it was once considered 'wrong' to masturbate because it was the 'makings' of life. I guess that's good for now...Looking forward to your response...