For the sake of argument...

Let's take the other side seriously for a moment and assume, strictly for the sake of this discussion, that an embryo is a person from the moment of conception, and that it has the same rights as every other person has. You know that I think that's crap, but let's pretend it's not for now, okay?

An innocent person has a right to live, so an embryo has a right to live. (Hard to imagine an embryo as anything other than innocent, eh?) Killing an innocent person is wrong and we should prevent that. If we don't act to save that innocent embryo against its murder by abortion, we're as guilty of killing it as the person who performs the abortion is, and as guilty as the woman who has it performed on her is. Our only moral option is to prevent abortion, even if that means making it a crime to have or give one.

Seems pretty clear that, if we don't act to stop it, we are committing a moral wrong, because we are choosing to let an innocent person die. That's why we have to empower our police to arrest abortionists and their patients, our courts to prosecute them, and our prisons to lock them up. Heck, Virginia has the death penalty and prisons are expensive. Abortionists and their patients are not innocent. Execute them. If we don't, we're as bad as they are.

Some people point out that, if we use the power of government to control a pregnant woman's behavior, we're taking away her liberty. That's true, but we're talking life and death here! Any constitutional scholar will tell you that life interests outrank liberty interests under the constitution. So, government forcing choices on pregnant women is constitutionally okay, if that's what it takes to save an innocent person's life.

Right.

When was the last time you gave blood? Something like a quarter of a million people died in Haiti this year after a major earthquake struck their homes. Many died for lack of blood. Every single person who could have given a pint of blood, but didn't, might have saved an innocent life. But didn't. Why is that okay, but standing by and letting a woman make her own choice isn't? Because it should be your choice as to whether or not you give blood? How is it not, then, a woman's choice as to whether or not she gives birth? Because her choice kills and your choice doesn't? Sorry. You give blood, or someone dies. She gives birth, or someone dies. What gives anyone the right to compel a person to give birth, if no one has the right to compel a person to give blood? (By the way, giving blood is far less likely to kill you than giving birth.)

If an embryo is an innocent person, and it's morally wrong to allow others to kill an innocent person, and therefore we are morally obliged to compel a pregnant woman to give birth, are we not morally obliged to compel an able person to give blood?

Are we not obliged to compel every potential donor with a kidney to be tested for type and kept on file so their kidney can save an innocent life when that donor dies?

Heck, if you have two good kidneys, why should you be allowed to keep them both? Some people don't have one. Government simply must take one of yours or else some innocent person dies.

If you believe an embryo is a person and that government must force a pregnant woman to give that person birth, then roll up your sleeve. And keep next week open, too, because you're going to be due in surgery. Someone out there needs one of your kidneys, and by God, the government's gonna give it to him.

Nothing else would be moral.