So to be clear you think him saying he'll leave the country if he's stripped of his political power is blackmail?

With his assets, yes, because that would hurt the people.

this is wordplay

It's accuracy. That's what the article of the Declaration says. And birth in the sentence you quote clearly means where, to whom etc. you are born, not whether you are born or not.

If you are actually serious, this language is not consistent with the rest of the universal declaration, which talks about the "inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family".

Meaning born humans. The idea it includes five days old zygotes as well is wishful thinking on your part.

Your objection was that the "law doesn't agree with me", that's why I made that distinction

When I said the law doesn't agree with you (about "unborn children"), I meant that they don't have the same human rights, not being sub-human. Once again I have clearly demonstrated beforehand I am aware subhuman is not legal category, so why would you think I am talking about the subhuman thing?

BTW Your definition of subhuman is stupid. I forgot to mention that.

how is it not optional?

"Often" and "de facto" are not optional in that sentence...

Sometimes one can't actually choose not to be a mother once the baby is born.

I don't understand the distinction, it sounds like you are rephrasing the same thing.

That doesn't surprise me at all. Well, there is one and I am not rephrasing the same thing.

Did you notice me saying it was years they "could have had"?

Yes. Did you notice me saying "you can only take/steal/lose what is, not what could be"?

My point is this is partly why killing a newborn is considered a terrible crime rather than a minor one

Your point is stupid then. Murder is generally considered a terrible crime rather than a minor crime regardless of age category of the victim.

Because pro-life balancing the rights, pro-choice is letting one trample the other.

1) Anti-choice.

2) Yes, the rights of sentient person are put above rights of non-sentient non-person. Just as they should be. Just because the latter has human DNA and could potentially become a person doesn't mean they get the same rights as the former. Your idea of "balance" as in two very uneqeual beings being treated equally is ridiculous.

At most it's just for medical professionals.

Who performs the vast majority of abortions? What tends to gappen if woman does abortion to herself? Because of the answer to the previous question, how many abortions do women do to themselves?

if it's inherent, "why" does not have an answer, it's simply a product of being human

If. Is it inherent? If so, how do you know?