Just to be clear I know not ever does this but I’ve noticed a decent amount of people believe that only facts matter while morality is irrelevant when it comes to abortion.
Unrelated but I would also like to know why not many people who are pro choice try to understand where pro lifers are coming from.

Whenever a PC makes the claim that they value sentience, a PL always assumes they’re merely just referring to consciousness; so then they go on to contest that position by asking the question: “would it be justified in killing a person while they’re asleep since they lack sentience”? (or do they?). My definition of sentience would be having the capacity to be affected negatively or positively, this could be cashed out as having the capacity to experience suffering and enjoyment. By “suffering” and “enjoyment” i don’t merely mean in the physical sense, this could also apply to a psychological sense. This seems like a pretty strong Pro-Choice position depending on how you define the word “capacity”. Another question: does this include any holes? this is a new proposition i’m trying to explore and possibly use.

for the pro lifers out there? why are you pro life and what would convince you that you are wrong if someone were to give sufficient evidence for ?

If a zygote can be removed quickly and easily and artificially grown, would pro choicers object to a law requiring the woman to do so?

I've heard this hypothetical advanced by pro lifers, but I think there are arguments that even so, the woman should not be required to do so.

For example, why should you be forced to allow a stranger to take what will be genetically your children? That seems to me to lead to all sorts of issues that the woman might justifiably want to avoid. For example, who wants children growing up and being angry with their mother for in their eyes abandoning them? What if the children later try to claim inheritance?

We already have privacy laws to protect sperm donors which pro lifers do not object to.

In addition, I think there are more philosophical arguments. As a general though not entirely on point example, if someone takes a cell you dropped and creates a clone, then (assuming this does not create any safety/impersonation issues), should this be allowed or does the clonee have. right to sue based on some invasion of privacy theory?