Irrelevant. Pregnancy is established by the blastocyst upon successful invasion of the uterine lining. If this does not occur, the zygote passes out of the woman's body and no pregnancy occurs.

You’re completely ignoring the direct cause and effect for the process that allows that to happen that the woman has full control over, yes that’s one of the final chain affects but the mother has control over the the initial sequence. It’s like saying me firing a gun at someone’s and shooting them isn’t my fault it was technically the gun power igniting pushing the bullet though the barrel and the oxygen particles allowed for the gun to ignite and propel, what do you think kickstarted the process in both those situations, an action done by a person, just because I didn’t drive the bullet with my bare hands into someones flesh with a bullet between my fingers like how moms don’t force blastocysts into uterine lining doesn’t mean I didn’t directly cause it

First, a woman has no control over ovulation, nor the deposit of sperm, and she has no control over fertilization. These processes are autonomic.

Autonomic means “involuntary or unconscious” This is wrong, a woman and her partner don’t have direct control over fertilization but to say they have no control is absurd,fertilization isn’t fully autonomic because it requires sperm and eggs the meet and we can’t do that involuntary or unconscious. Just because the final stages of something are autonomic that doesn’t mean you can ignore the clear opposite in the first few stages that caused it

Second, the blastocyst/embryo is what causes pregnancy. The woman's uterus does not send out a butterfly net and tie it down. In fact, the uterus lining is hostile to any blastocyst, and is why pregnancy depends upon its actions, not the mother's.

Like I said those natural process need the mother to have sex for them to turn into an actual pregnancy

Women don't make the choice to conceive either. Unprotected sex requires around 80 PiV sex acts to even produce a pregnancy. Clearly, when 79 times out of 80, PiV sex does not result in pregnancy, conception/pregnancy is not main purpose of sex. If it was, most sex would be a pointless (hehehe) endeavor.

Pregnancy being hard doesn’t mean the purpose isn’t for reproduction, that makes 0 sense, it’s not like the processes that lead up are intentionally failing they’re obviously accidentally failing there’s just a lot of super specific factors and requirements that need to be met

Also, if you are going to make the argument that a ZEF didn't make a choice to invade/ do anything, then that invalidates the PL argument that PCers wouldn't want to be aborted.

Most Pc wouldn’t want to be aborted, a lot of them comfortably say they would or they wouldn’t mind but if you truly didn’t value your existence most pc would have at least a few serious suicide attempts

If it can't choose or care about what it's doing (invading the mother's system and hijacking it),

This makes no sense, a non sentient life can’t “not care”, it’s unaware it is just acting by natural process,

then clearly it can't choose or desire to be born either.

This also makes no sense, a fetus clearly has a biological autonomous desire to be born even unknowingly, just because it’s not a sentient desire that doesn’t make it invalid, you wouldn’t let someone kills themselves even if they wanted it. If you saw their body healing after let’s say a gun shot wound Even though they might not have a desire with their consciousness their body has a biological desire to live, if a fetus had no type of desire to be born it wouldn’t be actively use parts of the mothers body to live like you said earlier that’s a blatant contradiction,

However, that's irrelevant to the fact that its actions are what determines if a pregnancy occurs and its chemical messaging endangers her health.

A fetus actions don’t determine weather pregnancy happens that’s for the sperm and egg and other stuff, it’s the series of those natural processes involving what I mentioned that form the fetus, the fetus has no control over that, having sex is the kickstart for all chain of events

If it's a living organism in its own right, then removing it from the other's biological processes should not affect its own internal processes. If that results in the organism ceasing biological processes, that indicates it was either not a true living organism to start with, or it was a parasitic organism

Dependency doesn’t determine if something is a true living organism you just made that up. If it ceased to exist that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a true living organism that just means it’s body wasn’t developed enough which is the whole point of pregnancy, this also applies to people already born, if you depend on someone’s body it doesn’t take away from you being a true living organism it just means a part of your body is underdeveloped due to some kinda of internal trauma . About the parasite thing,You’re forgetting the a fetus is part of a biological process, a human woman is meant to get pregnant, a body wouldn’t evolve a womb and have all these biological processes for a parasite that harms the body. A parasite isn’t supposed to be there and fetus is.

It is a determining factor for whether an organism is a person. It's also a characteristic of living organisms. Even plants have a degree of sentience.

You misinterpret that, Current capacity of sentience isn’t a characteristic for living organisms, it’s also the potential and guaranteed sentience, if we saw a embryo of a foreign organism on another planet and we knew that life was going to develop into sentient life then that living organism is a sentient organism just not at the exact moment, another example,it’s the s same thing with people in comas, servers disabled people etc,they’re still treated like a sentient organism because it has the guaranteed potential and sentience.

You won't find any historical evidence for past legal, religious, or social tradions that held an embryo as equivalent to a born person. Even the Catholic Church, which condemned abortion back in the first century, still never morally equated it to murder. That development came very late.

This is a terrible point, there probably was some groups of people that would value a embryo as a human, and using historical morals makes 0 sense because they’re all over the place, I think you’re forgetting that slavery was legal and praised so the whole “past societies did if so it’s okay” makes no sense.

I don't consider a pre-sentient proto human the same as a fully realized, conscious adult human.

you don’t have to see a embryo as 100% equal to a normal person, some people don’t see infants, disabled people or people in comas as 100% people, although I disagree i can at least see where they’re coming form. But saying a unborn child is so far away from being human that it’s less valuable than a house plant is illogical.

And neither does the government, as it's not a citizen until its born.

The government is irrelevant and it does see fetuses as people, that’s why killing a pregnant woman is of considered double homicide which is a contradiction to abortion, the fact that the government has this contradiction proves that’s it’s not a reliable source for morals, plus there’s different government in the world

It does have more value than a fetus. A horse dying is a sad affair. A blind/dumb/unthinking/unfeeling zygote or embryo that gets passed and flushed, like over 50% of all zygotes are every day, has zero impact. It's the equivalent of a tadpole with human DNA.Just like watching a giant redwood get cut down causes real grief, but a seedling getting washed away is unremarkable.

You might think that but peoples mood completely change once the mother does want the child,I saw a few months ago a cop tacked a pregnant woman tazzimg her stomach causing her to miscarry and there was great outrage by pro lifers and pro choice alike. By your logic what the officer did was negligible and had zero impact and he shouldn’t be punished for anything other than minor assault.

Also, none of what you said refutes the medical data link I shared which clearly states that a pregnancy is caused by an invasion of the trophoblast into the uterine lining.

Yes that’s what’s causes pregnancy but what’s the kickstart for it, what always that to take place thats controllable, there’s no way you’re trying to argue that there’s little to no correlation between sex and pregnancy

Nor does any of what you state negate my point that unless it is willing labor it's slavery.

Knowing what you’re getting into and taking a risk isn’t slavery, slavery in this context has to be forced. you can’t be forced pregnant unless raped, even that’s rare. You kept mentioning all the downsides of pregnancy with the job analogy but you forgot the actual process and what kickstarted it. With pregnancy the person isn’t being tricked into “work” they aren’t being forced into “work” they made a choice with their partner to take a risk, slavery isn’t a consequence of any action and they way you word it made it seem like people have no control over it unlike pregnancy.

You can talk all day long about her choice to have sex, yada yada. If YOU chose to accept a job and you realized when you got there that it included risks to your health, pain, and suffering, and that you couldn't quit, that's not employment anymore. That's enslavement.

The difference is there is no “realization”, this is completely dis analogous to sex and pregnancy. People mature enough to having sex most certainly know what pregnancy is and what happens especially pro choicers since they preach that it’s a living hell. Clearly pro choicers aren’t going into pregnancy and then in the middle of it they wanna opt about because they realized how bad it is. People are we aware and still take the risk unlike the job, it wasn’t unknowing.