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?

As a general matter, I advocate for sanctifying life, not just in a humanist way, but in a way that truly seperates life and humanity in a mystical way. It's not enough for me to simply say we're humans so therefore we afford ourselves priority, but it means something more to me, where I hold each person out in the universe as a child of God with special purpose.

That argument does hold sway with me, and I can understand why some want to avoid stripping that special assignment from the deserving. I don't think it helps though to assign it where it isn't deserving. To say that the value of my life and your life is infinite is true, but to then to say that also of the zygote doesn't just benignly elevate the zygote to special status, but it demeans my status. It suggests that the loss of the zygote is truly is as monumental as the loss of a child.

As in really? You read of a child drowning and that evokes the same thoughts as a zygote being disposed of at the fertility clinic?

And this is where I think the pro-choice get rightly offended, even if it's doubtfully based in anything I've said about the sacred and holy. It's not in the idea that zygotes are afforded great value. It's in the idea that living breathing people are reduced to the value of a zygote and the rights of each must be weighed as if my life is of no more woth than a zygote.

And I say all this because I am about as religious a poster as posts here, but I find this pro-life position hard to swallow. It just seems the result of some dogma that demands zygote = person without much thought into what that means and it obviously comes from a religious tradition foreign to my own that violates my views of the who we all are.

I'm not at all keen on so-called "trolly" arguments. There are intractable moral situations.

I find your position very interesting and I respect it.

the result of some dogma that demands zygote = person without much thought into what that means and it obviously comes from a religious tradition foreign to my own that violates my views of the who we all are. — Hanover

Yes, that is probably the answer to my quesion to

And I say all this because I am about as religious a poster as posts here — Hanover

Yes. Perhaps my reaction to this is a banality - to identify as religious can signify different things to different people; it’s a very adaptable term. And seems to encapsulate some of our worst and best impulses. The 'religious' may have very little in common.

As a general matter, I advocate for sanctifying life, not just in a humanist way, but in a way that truly seperates life and humanity in a mystical way. — Hanover

Fair enough. I think in the end this 'mystical' perspective will always come down to the presuppositions we hold. Elaborate post hoc justifications are often built upon them. I'm not sure I know what sanctifying life means, except as a kind of poetry.

A lot of people I have encountered who pontificate about the 'sacredness of human life' are simple hypocrites. They're quite comfortable with capital punishment and don't seem to mind if the poor die in vast numbers through lack of affordable services.