Abortion

Anyway, since you have done nothing to refute that the fetus is a living human being, then my claims stand firm. Yup. A fetus is a living human being. I did not refute it because I have no argument with your point. In fact, in order for you to say an interloper could be a "person or human" inside a woman you must inherently mean a fetus is a person or a human. How many times will I have to say this, it is HUMAN! That is the only circumstance where a person could act as an interloper in another person's body. So I do not think the issue then is whether or not the fetus is a human being (since by deduction you would have to agree the fetus is), rather, the issue is whether the fetus has a right to remain in the woman or not. Now you are getting it. Ok, so here is where your argument that the fetus can be killed for "trespassing" falls apart. Let us say you are being robbed. The robber is 30 years old. However, he is holding his year old child. Certainly you have the right to defend yourself against the 30 year old robber for trespassing. In some states you have the right to defend your ground by even shooting and killing him. However, do you have the right to kill the innocent, year old child in the robbers hands? The baby technically is trespassing. BY your argument, it would justifiable to kill the baby as well. If the child refuses my demand to leave my body, I have a right to kill it. However, since the child is entirely innocent, you cannot kill the child even under the circumstance that the child is trespassing. The child is in violation of my wishes to leave my body. The same argument then applies for the fetus. The fetus is entirely innocent and therefore cannot be killed for what you call "trespassing." And if you would be willing to say that the death of the fetus is warranted for trespassing, then you also have to admit the one year old's death could be warranted just for trespassing. See above. Now let us examine whether the chid in a womb even is trespassing. The only circumstance where I could remotely see this argument applying is under the circumstance of rape. However, since the child is still entirely innocent, the child cannot be killed. However, by committing an act of consensual sex, (not always) the person is saying they are open to reproduction (since thats what sex is.) and therefore must be open to the conception of a child. Not at all. Sex is not only for reproduction. Provide anything to back that. People always claim that just by having sex does not mean you are also consenting to pregnancy. That is a terribly false argument. Look at any condom package. No condom will guarantee 100% protection because no sex is entirely "safe." Birth control doesn't even work 100% of the time. By engaging in any consensual sex, there will always be the chance a child could be conceived. Good thing abortion is legal. Someone who says "just because i had sex does not mean I also consented to the pregnancy." is forfeiting their responsibility. That is exactly like saying "just because I gambled does not mean I consented to losing all my money." Or "Just because I consented to driving over the speed limit does not mean I consented to the ticket I received." There is a clear lack of responsibility for personal actions when someone says they weren't consenting that the woman could become pregnant. And because any act of consensual sex is inherently then consenting to the conception of a child, (whether the people like it or not). Therefore the child was given consent to be in the womb. Conjecture In fact, isn't the usage of a condom or birth control in itself revealing that there is an acceptance that the woman might become pregnant? If the point of a condom is to prevent pregnancy, then the person must know the sex leads to a pregnancy since they are trying to stop that. And since no condom is 100% guaranteed, then the person is consenting to even the 1% chance a child would be conceived. Therefore, the act of conception itself is consensual and the fetus is not trespassing. Conjecture You never have the right to kill an innocent human being. And since the fetus is a human being who is innocent, then you cannot kill the fetus on the grounds that it is "unwelcome." It will not leave my body voluntarily. It is violating my right to determine the use of my own body.