Jose
Your definition of life is misleading. A corpse possesses human DNA & can move by itself [as has happened in front of a friend of mine & scared the wits out of her] but a corpse is not alive. It follows that self-movement & human DNA are insufficient to establish human life.
Now I have a problem for those who are against the right to abortion. Let's say that a woman is kidnapped by a man she goes out with. He takes her back to his home & keeps her there for 9 months to supply a source of blood for his child, otherwise the child will die.
NOTE: The woman did NOT volunteer for this kidnapping nor did she volunteer to supply the blood but is now forced against her will to do this. Just like a woman is who finds herself pregnant against her will.
Does the kidnapped woman have the right to escape - even at the expence of the child's life? I would argue yes as I would imagine most here would. What has all this got to do with abortion? Simple.
1) The woman was kinapped aginst her will [just as a woman can find herself pregnant against her will].
2) She is being kept to supply blood to a man's child [Just as a pregnant woman supplies blood & nutrients to a foetus].
3) If she esvcapes the child will die yet she has the RIGHT to escape if she wishes. [just as a pregnant woman has the right to abortion if she wishes].
4) The right in both cases exists regardless of the status of the foetus [ie child or not].
Conclusion: The right to an abortion MUST be maintained. To do otherwise is to treat the woman as a mere tool for incubation.

I think Jose should be commended for singlehandedly creating a new branch of pseudoscience - that I shall dub 'creation biology'. It would fit well in a curriculum that also includes ID, palmistry and the Tarot.

I think that this whole discussion is very boring and repetitive. Jose's "arguments" are indeed boring.

Jose, I was raped by two men. You have a weird notion aboot rape and its consequences.

Bosk,
Relevant point about the corpse, although it is not a functioning organism.
MD,
I haven't brought Creation into this

Jose “The reason I say that Independence is not a pre-requisite of Individuality is because Individuality is biologically determined. The child is a distinct organism.”

When “independence” is not achieved, “dependency” exists. That “dependency” is for the bodily resources of the mother.

As for focusing on a point of difference – because the difference is not about the biology of an organism but is really about the right of a person (the mother) to make decisions for herself.

I extend all right to deployment of those resources to the mother.
I extend to her the right of choice whether to continue to remain pregnant.
I recognise her right of choice.
I place any demand or expectation the embryo/fetus might make or have for those resources as secondary to the demands and expectations of the mother.

If the mother’s determination on deployment of her own bodily resources were to be placed second, after the embryo / fetus demands, she is reduced to the status the a life-support system for a uterus. You might be happy with that status but I am not and never will be.

Demand the removal from the mother of the right of decision and you are demanding the same thing as Hitler enacted upon "Aryan" women in the 1930’s and 1940’s.

"[The] “dependency” is for the bodily resources of the mother."
I completely agree.

I believe that if there is a direct threat to the life of the mother then a choice may be made, however, everything scientifically possible should be done to ensure the survival of both of them. If only one can be saved, then only one can be chosen (by the mother).
If there is no direct threat to the mother's life then the life of the child should be allowed to continue. This does not impede the rights of the mother, who freely chose to conceive, however if she was raped then the rapist should compensate for the damages rather than the child.