Old man shouts ...SBH "Although I appreciate the efforts of the woman who carries the child, the child is an entirely different being."

It is emotive nonsense to call a blastocyst a "child".

Then why and how do you have the authority to decide that this parasitic embryonic"child" has rights that supersede that of the carrier?"

Especially given he's refused to answer my question:

If a teenage child need a kidney donated to save their life, and the only donor available was the biological father, and the father refused to donate a kidney. Would Somebodieshero be happy to strap the man down and remove his kidney against his wishes, even passing a law to insist this could be done?

If he wouldn't do this, then why does he want to grant an insentient blastocyst or foetus rights over the woman carrying it, he would deny a conscious self aware teenager who could experience emotional trauma and physical pain?

It's a ludicrous rationale that can get into an emotional outrage over the termination of an insentient blastocyst, yet disregard the rights and suffering of fully sentient woman.