I don't expect the mother to donate her uterus, I expect her not to ask others to kill the embryo, e.g. to do nothing. There are several rights in this case, which contradict each other and I think not killing has the top priority.

The example with the stowaway is one of the most challanging moral problems, which I know of. The captain is defenitivly not stealing any money of the stowaway, as the stowaway has not paid the captain to transfer him to Europe. However, sending back refugees to Afrika with the full knowledge of the situation they can expect there can be called a crime without my objection.
It is very difficult to apply global moral standards, when other countries are involved on which actions we don't have influence, but if one does it, border protection against a country with a dearth can be called a crime.

1. Most people don't argue on principle and even those who do often agree in compromises, which viewed on its own don't make sense. There are a lot of gradual regulations of abortion, e.g. the time, consultation requirements, specific regulation in case of medical indication or rape, law enforement, ...  In Germany we have a consensus democracy in which rarely a 49% minority is completely disregarded.

2. I don't know Ted Haggart, but I know that the leaders of the "Christian right" in the USA are mostly hypocrites. I think it is as well hypocritical e.g. to rally against S-CHIP and being "pro-life" (it seems in the US saying I'm for something is much more popular than saying I'm against something) or to support a war or desatrous sanctions and being "pro-life". I only can say that I and most people I know who are against abortion are not hypocrites, at least not on that issue. I think as well, that such a degree of hypocracy as seen on the "Christian right" in the US, would have much higher backlash in the "Ich stehe hier und kann nicht anders" ('I stand here and can not not (?)') Germany.

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers