Pt2
To be consistent the pro-choice group if they use personhood with a combination of not causing pain, could kill, experiment, make use of this group for whatever purposes was thought beneficial, if it was done without causing pain. Say we painlessly kill and make use of the body parts for those with severe mental handicaps or experiment on unwanted new born babies after they have been lobotomized.

Now I imagine most if not all Pro-choice would find this repugnant, well that is the where the Pro-Life people are coming from. They see those from the Pro-choice making an arbitrary decision for inclusion for equal moral consideration, excluding a section of humanity based on developmental and cognitive criteria which they are inconsistent on anyway. But not only that, they see human lives albeit at the earliest stage of development, being used as spare body parts and experimentation material.

While there are subgroups on both sides, the consistent Pro-Lifers would still allow life-threatening abortions, but others especially when the adoption option is so under promoted as a viable alternative would be outlawed. (To be consistent IVF would be heavily curtailed)

So I think it can be argued at least on this subject Pro-Lifer’s are morally consistent whereas the Pro-choice are inconsistent and hypocritical

Neohuman does a pretty good job of explaining what is basically the "ends justifies the means" dilemma. This research is merely comodifying humans - the same problem IVF presented 25 years ago and continues today.

If I could find a universal cure all for humanity from the spleen of sperm whales, would we see opportunistic people killing them all while others howl "save the whales?" Too right we would.

If we could prevent whales from total destruction by transfering their offspring into tanks and implanting their cells into surrogate women's ova I wouldn't be surprised that the argument that we are abusing captured whales (to get genetic material) would be louder than surrogate egg donor's rights.

Human life is cheap & dispensable when the 'ends' blocks the problem of seeing the wrong of the 'means.'

Thankyou Brian for a marvellous career in politics.

You will be sorely missed.

PT1
While I’m at it I’ll pre-empt the it’s a females reproductive right/her body, the we are not made to give blood or organs to strangers and the surgically attached adult that would die if removed arguments.

No we are not made morally or legally to give blood or organs to others who would die without the donation.

Well that goes for our children as well but most parents will readily do this because of the fact they are related and wanted and that even goes for children that have limited or no personhood. But what does this say that we only value a life that is related to us only if it is wanted?

Remember Pro-Choice has designated a inconsistent personhood as the criteria that regardless of whether the child is wanted or not we give it equal consideration. So we cannot once a child is born neglect it or kill it. But why not, it is not yet have personhood like a zygote or foetus, so to be consistent we should like the Ancient Romans and other past societies be able to kill them if they are unwanted by the parents or experiment for that matter, it would be a simple matter to do it without them feeling any pain.

Society is also inconsistent on the pain inflicted on the pre-born as well, by a quick Google late tern abortions would certainly feel pain and some indications that as early as 8 weeks a foetus feels pain. What does that say when we have laws concerning pain related abuse of farm animals and pets but we can cause pain to our own family members if they happen to be pre-born?

This is also shown in the ambivalence on whether a assault leading to a miscarriage on a pregnant woman is just assault or manslaughter, you cannot have it both ways.

PT 2
The surgically attached adult argument is flawed as is the my body/reproductive right.

In all cases except rape in the surgically attached argument the woman isn’t a innocent party as she willingly participated in a activity that she knew could lead to the creation of a life that would be related to her.

As far as the my body I can do what I want, well we have a limited right to our body that basically says you do as long as you don’t adversely effect someone else’s body. From the moment of conception the zygote is a unique human life inside her body, not the egg that was part of the female’s body. By consenting to take part in an activity that could create a unique human life that is not part of you body they have taken duty of care for this life. To correct the surgically attached adult analogy the female has directly consented to the possibility that the adult may be attached and must bare the responsibility for that action.

If we are looking for a situation of equal consideration of all parties then this is not it. We have in most cases two of those parties consented to participate but the third party is excluded for any consideration unless on totally arbitrary grounds on whether it is wanted or not. The male is given no right in the consideration of whether the human life continues but is expected to take responsibility for his participation by financially contributing whether he wants it to continue or not.

The female’s consideration –and we are no longer talking about life and death for her- is placed above all the others and is allowed to avoid any responsibility for her participation and is given the right which no other member of our society gets- in an society that hasn’t got capital punishments- to end a healthy human life

BTW also to give equal consideration fathers either get a say in whether the foetus lives or the woman gives up her right to child support.

"The problem Pro-choice group has-notice I'm not using the potential human argument- that they think that this criteria is as arbitrary as race or sex, as even the zygote is a unique human life at the earliest stage of the human lifecycle. (this differentiates from even a skin cell or sex cell as they are part of an unique individual not a unique individual in itself which the pr-choice accepts as well)"
I'm having trouble parsing this, but my guess is that "they" refers to anti-abortionists and I gather the potential human argument means a pro-choice view that a fetus etc, are currently only potential lives?

The corresponding problem with the pro-life position you outlined occurs when the zygote/embryo/fetus will not develop or when there is no chance of cognitive ability. (This may bring up issues of your potential human argument- but I'm not sure what you meant by that.) Taking the not uncommon situation of an embryo implanted in the fallopian tubes: it will never develop but will probably kill the mother. Or for the liberal anti-abortion position, what about a hypothetical freak zygote that never develops but is self-sustaining within the womb or elsewhere? Or a human that will not develop anything other than a brain stem?

"Currently in Western societies who allow abortion for non-life threatening cases, they give personhood rights to infants, the mentally handicapped and some of the elderly who have age related cognitive problems, even tough they do not have a fully functioning 'personhood' or in some cases self-awareness."
I don't see the inconsistency here, if personhood is atributed to some stage of development, for arguments sake birth, then the three examples listed would be people with full personhood rights and so would a brain dead person. Not the best position, but it does remove that inconsistency. Now if the status of personhood depends solely on normal levels of mental ability then there is an inconsistency. That can be resolved simply by reducing the standard of mental ability required. Even though there is a gray area, that doesn't mean that action can't be taken