Yet you missed the obvious fact that science doesn't even have a good definition for life, in fact it's a hard problem in the philosophy of science. You could say that the replicating mass of cells will in the future become a human being and that is not true of a sperm (unless it later goes on to fertilize an egg), but a sperm is just as "alive" as a fertilized egg.

If you have some sperm cells laying around they won't grow into a human. If you have a fertilized egg it will (assuming the process completes normally).

Again, this doesn't matter to the discussion. Even if they were fully grown humans this wouldn't "override" pregnant person's right to decide about their own body.

(Also, you're conflating 'being homo sapiens' with 'being a person'; you've already tried this method of derailing the discussion two days before.)

> Even if they were fully grown humans this wouldn't "override" pregnant person's right to decide about their own body.

Of course it would. Should you be able to murder your kids in your house because "your house, your choice"?

>Of course it would.

Does it mean a parent can be forced to donate an organ for transplant for their child?

>Should you be able to murder your kids in your house

Completely different situation; we are talking about bodily autonomy, not “housing autonomy”.

>Does it mean a parent can be forced to donate an organ for transplant for their child?

I am not who you were responding to, but since we were talking previously I will remind you what I said before. You are not obligated to provide what people need above the basic necessities. Organ donations go beyond that.