integrity of woman's body applies only at life risks. The axiom is simple, you cannot kill another human life. That's criminal. You tell me but it's legal. Yes, nazism was legal too. Moreover it's technically illegal as the constitutions normally protect human life beforehand. Definition of human life is already and long ago clarified by biology. Science has also proved that the new human being is cromosomically different, another human being, despite being inside another, that's the way we reproduct and if the woman do not like that just do not havw a kid, do not initiate the process, be responsible beforehand. Do not try to avoid responsibility. It follows, a woman cannot decide over any other human being. Killing it's own baby is murder. As you see, the whole issue is nonsense and goes down easily. The real issue here is not debating this stupid thing that a mother can kill her own child, a murder aggravated by familiar link. The real issue is its impulsion as a politic and as a busses. There is ideology behind and evil planning. Look up some info about the origin of planned parenthood for example. My advice: study, learn, think, attach to logic.

let's make it concise, in your example there are no moral subjects as morality only exists in human consciousness, there are different degrees of consciousness. Animals are conscious too. Anyway, morality can exist in that dimension only and it doesn't affect the objectivity of it. Objectivity which is going to be attained through intellect. You have an analigy with numbers or ecuation pointing out relations objectively existent outside the realm of the mind, we just discover them through intellect. Regarding morality, it exists only when there are moral subjects and its universal values are objective in logical thinking. We disagree in a point in which discussion cannot go further because you are sustaining ammorality as a basis for every other point you want to make.

no, that's called amoral. If you want to change meaning and twist and pervert concepts, go ahead, there are persons who say tge earth is flat and 2 plus 2 not really four. Those have a name too. Study biology

there's some flawed reasoning there. Morality exists only in human consciousness. Therefore in your example there is no moral subject. Ergo, it proves nothing. Next point, the value of human life is morally objective. That's the basis of Morality. What you are trying to put on the table here is ammoral.
Next points you've written are not even arguments , you digress saying "humans think", which is rather nonsense, and then you get completely off the track talking about white and black, which is absolutely nonsense and has nothing to do. It's easy, Morality implies the value of human life objectively. If you are against that, that's called ammoral and the actions guided by that unreasonable way of thinking, if that can be said to be thinking, is immoral.

let's try it without wine. There is no need of going to extremes. Though I think you are on the right way. Love is about giving, not to be confused with sexual attraction or the state of being in love, which is about wanting. The problem is that we are using the same word for all of that. I think that love is possible through understanding and not through passion, which the old sages deplored it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just the same word is being used for different things, the same happens with the word beauty

I see your point. Although that proves to be inmoral because the potential is never realized because of killing it and as it it a human life that is a moral act. If your intention is not to bring a kid to this world, do not initiate the process. I know two people who were almost aborted because of those trends of pseudo philosophy and pseudo science. And they are happy to be alive. So the problem here in your argument is that you feel entitled to decide over a human life tgat has rights and that nobody should do. Life is naturally developing itself and somebody comes and terminates it. That's inmoral because of terminating a human life, the point about feeling is irrelevant. According to you, a human life has moral significance because of being sentient and that's false. A human life has a moral value in its essence.

["] Antinatalists explain their position guided by feelings not by reason.

the guiding principle of life is reason, not sensations. Provided that we are talking about animali rationali. And happiness is not an end but a means, rather imperfect.

Again, there is a whole potential in process already, which you are terminating, if you didn't do anything, the development is going to be a persona. That is to say, it's a human life that cell clump. If I take cells from my skin, it's not going to become a person. Don't try to evade moral acts. You are nobody to judge who has to be born. There is something called responsibility of moral acts

when the ovum is fertilized, there you get the essence which has the potentiality of development in somebody like you. There is life, human life and killing an innocent human life is normally against every constitution
, which defends it. There you see that legal abortion, except extreme questionable cases and situations which are not the rule, is not logical, therefore technically illegal. As you can see, I am rather focusing in human life and that is sufficient to discard abortion. Person as a concept is tricky, malleable and used to confuse and not to talk about the real thing. Human life begins at the conception, legally, biologically, philosophically, as you can prove by studying yourself.

a fetus is sentient and is a human being, what are you talking about? Once there is a conception, there is a human being. If nobody terminates (that's the word, not interrupt) the pregnancy, that fertilized ovum is going to fully develop, that means that the whole potentiality of development is part of its essence.