Rape.

The rationale for defining human life as "sacred and inviolable" should be Decartesian: Sentient thought or the capacity to do so is what separates us from the animals, humans incapable of doing so (note, the bar for sentience is decently low, so the mentally handicapped and toddlers still qualify) do not qualify for the same degree of consideration (note that this does not mean a total lack of consideration. All life deserves some respect, but all non-sentient life should ultimately be disposable if doing so is for the best)

I love you buddy, but this argument always irks me. Am I naive enough to say rape doesn't resolve in pregnancy? No. But let's be honest here. How many of those pregnancies are rape?

Would you be okay with your mother having aborted you? Do you love her enough to give her that kind of ultimate freedom? Would you be okay with not existing if that's what someone decided is for the best? If everything you've ever been is part of the same life, why is at any point your life less valuable?

And does thinking the bolded part really separate us from animals?

If my mother had aborted me, I would have never existed, effectively. It really runs into the "would the world be better off if I had never been born?" question, which is hard to answer.

Some parts are intrinsically less valuable due to a lack of ability to perceive the "self." If we cannot perceive the "self" (for instance, passing the mirror test. Funnily, pigs can pass that test whereas infants cannot), then we are not what makes us human. For healthy fetii, of course, they have the capacity to reach that point, but we cannot certainly say that they are on the level with a thinking human. Similarly with people who are in persistent vegatative states (that is, unable to think now and in the future)

Isn't you never having existed a more horrible thought than your life ending at this moment? It's not about you never making your mark on the world, it's about you never having experienced a moment of you own life. You can't honestly just care about what the world would be like. Humans aren't like that.

At that point in time no one knows what the world would be like with and without you. No one knows even now.

Men who run out on their children deserved to be punished - I totally agree with that.

But yes, the court generally favors women. 90% of custody cases have women victors, for example.

Here is my opinion: Women should be able to have an abortion, but if she doesn't and a custody battle happens, then the child should go to the parent that can best support him/her (instead of just going to the mother because she's a woman).

Not really. By never having the opportunity to exist, you don't have the ability to comprehend the horror of nonbeing.

That makes no sense. The political leanings of the pro-choice tend to respect all sentient human life, at least in the desire to make sure that all people are guaranteed a minimal quality of life, as opposed to the pro-life, whose concern for the unborn only extends as far as not allowing women to terminate them. I mean, hell, conservatives oppose support for government-funded maternal health care in pretty much all its forms, so if the baby is miscarried through malnutrition, or a lack of health care on the mother's part, nobody sheds a tear.

The pro-life movement is poorly named. All they care about is stopping abortion, but they care nothing for the actual life of the fetus or quality of life of the baby that fetus will become.