Traditionally, a rational will; i.e., a sufficiently free will. That is a serious and impactful difference between humans and other species: most, if not all, other species lack the capacity to go against their own nature and inclinations such that they are motivated by pure reason.

Traditionally, a being which has a Telos such that it will have, if not already has, a rational will are called persons (because their nature marks them out to be such); and their will must be respected.

More technically, a being which has a such a "rational Telos" is not necessarily a person but, rather, will be; and their nature marks them out as such; and this is what grounds their rights (and not whether or not they currently are a person). — Bob Ross

Strangely, you seem to be saying that the nature (capacity for reason and abstract goals) which allows abortion is what grounds the right to not be aborted.

This is entirely too vague. Do you think the blastocyst has a right to life or not?!? You are purposefully avoiding the question, because you know if you grant it rights then you cannot make this kind of argument that Mrs. Smith has more of a right to bodily autonomy. — Bob Ross

Your question is illicit. The standing of Mrs Smith ought far surpass whatever standing you might grant the blastocyst. Your attempts to show otherwise are either misguided or malevolent.

You've lost this discussion.

Your question is illicit. The standing of Mrs Smith ought far surpass whatever standing you might grant the blastocyst — Banno

I agree with this. This is not a matter I generally debate as it's a cesspit of virtue signalling and philosophical bullshit. What do you think is happening when people make the sorts of arguments that makes?