Anti-Abortion = Anti-Personal-Privacy

I'll phrase it this way: do you believe maintaining the position that a woman's privacy is paramount,

...even to the extent of relinquishing/shirking any responsibility to the sustenance she may bear her unborn child,

...without which said unborn child/fetus/embryo/zygote etc. would likely die,,

...is (logically/philosophically/ethically) consistent with maintaining the position that she is bound to assume responsibility for a born child/infant--

...privacy be damned--

...until she can transfer her obligations to an institution/individual who would relieve her of her duty to the infant as its parent?

Yes.  100%.

Here's our disconnect.  I maintain that the blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus is 100% mother's body.

Only when the cord is cut does that mass of cells become a CITIZEN, subject to and protected by the law-of-the-land.

This seems to be an unintentional straw-man (and an appeal to emotion).  The mass of cells that is 100% mother's body is subject to the mother's whim.  The mass of cells has the same legal status as a parasite or a tumor.

Please explain this statement.

Transfer her obligations may be as simple as abandoning the child at a designated safe-haven.

Yes.  100%.

And this precedes law, correct?

Why is she obligated to a foreign mass of cells and not her own, presuming the veracity of your premise?

(And please don't state: inside = non-citizen; outside = citizen.)

Speak to the nature of the obligation and the justification of its imposition.

The privacy of which I speak is not in reference to physicality. I mean her finances and her labor, and her discretion in choosing those whom she provides it.

Why is equality (via law) "fair"?

It is a tumor and or parasite of the mother if the overwhelming majority of its biomass is the result of the food she ingests, up to and until that mass of cells can ingest its own food.

Have  you never heard the phrase 'all are equal in the eyes of the law.  Isnt there also a statue of some blindfolded lady holding a balancing scale.

Maybe you not familiar with law in USA.

equality via law is sought after because of humans desire for fairness aka fair play, via philosophical considerations of morality, by most humans, barring those humans who have no access to their empathetic centers of their brain,

Not necessarily.

In times and or lands where women are and or were legally considered property, then they have or would have no personal-right-to-privacy.

In the same way it is illegal to cut down a tree without a permit, but it is not illegal to crush an acorn.

You're merely repeating your previous statement; why is equality (via the law) fair?Golden Rule Variations

It is humans attempt at being fair. And fairness stems from philosophy ergo morality.

Once again, why is equality (via the law) fair? You've only stated that it's fair; I'm soliciting an explanation to the reason it's fair.

Not necessarily.

In times and or lands where women are and or were legally considered property, then they have or would have no personal-right-to-privacy.

Does your position reflect decisions of law?

In the same way it is illegal to cut down a tree without a permit, but it is not illegal to crush an acorn.

Would you, 3RU7AL, who argues in favor a woman's privacy endorse the position that a mother bears an obligation to her child, and must transfer her obligation by legally sanctioned means?

You need to begin with a dictionary and stop your childish mind games. Maybe a childrens dictionary and work your way to a mature adult dictionary.

Yes, there are laws that strip certain people of basic human rights.

Are you asking if I personally agree with these laws?

Please be more specific.

In the absence of law (and or law enforcement) like in the wild west, I would suggest that how a parent treats or mistreats or abandons their children is nobody else's business.

Historically, children have been considered property until they complete some cultural rite-of-passage at which point they are considered a citizen of the tribe.

The primal human value hierarchy is simple,

(1) Protect yourself.

(2) Protect your close friends and family.

(3) Protect your territory.

The primal human value hierarchy is both instinctive and intuitive.

And the primal human value hierarchy applies to physical security and privacy.

You need to begin with a dictionary and stop your childish mind games. Maybe a childrens dictionary and work your way to a mature adult dictionary.

So your argument is a lexically semantic one; that is, equality is fair because the dictionary states as much.

The definition of fairness seems to be tantamount to goodness.  It is very poorly defined and wholly subjective and based on a wide range of non-factual personal opinions.  The definition itself is basically an "appeal-to-common-sense" fallacy.

So any obligation a parent bears his or her child is at his or her discretion? Fair enough.

So your argument is a lexically semantic one; that is, equality is fair because the dictionary states as much.

1.(ethics) The principle that one should not treat other people in the manner in which one would not want to be treated by them. [LINK]

Some mammals take care of their young.

Some mammals abandon their young, typically the runt starves.

Some mammals (even rabbits) eat their young.

All of these behaviors are predicated on instinct.

I believe our legal AXIOMS should (naturally and ideally) conform to,

(1) Protect yourself.

A citizen's body is sacrosanct.

A citizen's personal information is sacrosanct.

(2) Protect your close friends and family.

Activities and transactions between close friends and family members is sacrosanct.

The information you share with your close friends and family members is sacrosanct.

(3) Protect your territory.

A citizen's personal real-estate-property is sacrosanct.

The information concerning activities and or other property that may or may not be located should only be public insofar as those activities and or other property can be observed from outside a citizen's real-estate-property line.

That being said, I also strongly believe in following the letter of the law-of-the-land.

Commoning to common agreement of definition of word/terms  is the starting place.

That you cannot connect 'equality' to fairness shows you inability to have rational, logical common sense and mature discussion ergo unnecessary mind games is immature childs game is what your playing.

I don't have many ways in which to counter your statements (not that I would since I cant argue against the fact that you believe everything you just listed.) That being said, I'll state this:

I argue that all individuals are sovereign,

...and that the laws of the lands are currently subverting them.

Instead of letting law reflect a moral economy, common law especially deludes groups into Hobbesian traps, creating a fundamentally adversarial environment.

More to the point, in any interaction between individuals, to maximize--and I'm using this term particularly--any transaction conducted between them, their self-interest ought to/must be respected. Self-interest is the starting point to any interaction.

Furthermore, I'm not going to argue that the zygote/embryo/fetus isn't a life,

...not only because I firmly believe that is not the case, but also it isn't necessary to sustain consistently a pro-choice position.

That is, whether one concedes that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a life [like a tumor or a parasite], it doesn't have a right to its mother's womb. 

Gestation is its mother's gift, not the unborn child's entitlement.

By the same token, I would also argue that rearing is its mother's and/or father's gift, not the infant/child/adolescent's entitlement. 

While some would argue that the termination of pregnancy is tantamount to murder, I would argue otherwise. While in some cases, I'd argue it is, in the case where it's merely expelled, the death of the fetus isn't a result of its mother's malice aforethought, but the undeveloped physiology of the zygote/embryo/fetus. The fetus's incapacity to survive outside of its mother's womb is an unfortunate consequence of nature.

The right to one's person is derivative of individual sovereignty;

...to undermine any tenet of said principle is tantamount to undermining the principle in its entirety.

So despite my personal objection to abortion itself, my sustenance of the pro-choice position is a necessity to my adherence to individual sovereignty.

However, I am unclear as to where you believe this individual-sovereignty comes from?

I've never once claimed that the zygote/embryo/fetus isn't alive.

Ok, I'm not sure what you're suggesting here.

Does a blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus have any right to one's person?  At what point and by what authority do the gain and or earn that right?

Is this principle you're referring to "the right to one's person"?

The point is instead that it's nobody's business except for each individual sovereign mother.

Does a blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus have any right to one's person?  At what point and by what authority do the gain and or earn that right?

Not authority; morality. It's gained through the adherence of individualist philosophy. So yes, the zygote/embryo/fetus has a right to its person just as much as an infant, child, adolescent, and adult does.

The point is instead that it's nobody's business except for each individual sovereign mother.

And this must always be the case, even after gestation.