Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Begging the question requires some kind of fallacious reasoning using a conclusion as a premise.Yes  That's not the same thing as stating a factYes . To state that a fetus has a human genome and is living is merely describing or characterizing the state of being a fetus exists in. It makes no claims about the metaphysical status of the fetus itself. Contrary to what you say, it's very scientific and very objective. My statement regarding a fetus is that it’s a potential human Now, the debate depends on whether you think being of the species homo sapiens is enough to receive the right to life, or whether the entity has to be a human person (defined in the metaphysical sense). To that point, you say it doesn't matter how I define a fetus.As in your definition and mine may differ but even if I accept your definition most keep missing my point and thus the whole thrust of my argument  If we're sincerely interested in truth and morality it would matter whether we are destroying something that has a right to life because that would be called murder.It’s matters to me that a fetus seems to be given a right as in a right to life which takes precedence over a woman’s right to bodily autonomy , why should that be ? Murder by most moral constructs is inherently evil, and grossly more objectionable to violating bodily autonomy.Why do you use the term “ murder “ when applied to a fetus ? To be fair, I think your bodily autonomy argument deserves equal open-minded analysis as well. Good that signifies you’re open to a dialogue that may be fruitful If we can conclude that a pregnancy is violating a woman's rights then abortion as a solution deserves more consideration (assuming of course that we're not committing murder by doing it)No , I don’t agree that a pregnancy is violating a woman’s rights nor did I state that , again why the term “ murder “?. If you just de facto say "I really don't care how you define a fetus a woman's rights trump those of a fetus," well that's neither compelling nor good-willed.“Compelling “ to you no , to me yes , I don’t understand what you mean by “good willed “ as in to who ? The fact of the matter is that this issue effects everyone, and everyone involved in the debate matters. Yes , I agree If you just pick sides without actually hoping for some truthful answer, But why would hope for that ? Why is what you define as “ truth “ on the matter the be all and end all ? or are close-minded you're partaking in an incessant war that benefits no one. You see again you seem to be claiming anyone that disagree with your position is “ close minded “ hardly fair is it ?The same is true for pro-lifers who mindlessly defend an issue they don't understand. I'll get off my soap box.Well at least that is a more balanced observation Regarding your bodily autonomy argument, this is the same argument found in Beverly Wildung Harrison's "Our Right to Choose," Rosalind Pollack Petchesky's "Abortion and a Woman's Choice," and many works from Judith Jarvis Thompson. They all mistaken a liberty right for a claim right. The former can be laid out as follows: B (e.g. a woman) has a liberty relative to A (e.g. a fetus) to x (e.g. terminate a pregnancy), iff A (fetus) has no claim right that B (woman) should not x (terminate a pregnancy). A claim right would be laid out as follows: A (all innocent human beings) have a right that B (another person) should x (forebear intentional killing) iff B (another person) has a duty to A (human being) to x (forebear killing). Of course, the claim right is true because few would make the claim that an innocent human being shouldn't be protected from random killing. Hence, they have a right to not be killed. A claim right, a right in the strict sense, discusses the actions of other persons (i.e. another person) not of the right holder (i.e. the innocent human being) Meanwhile the liberty right we laid out earlier depends on the action of the right holder, the other person/entity, and the action. The woman only has a right to terminate a pregnancy iff the fetus does not have a claim right that the woman should not terminate the pregnancy. Because terminating a pregnancy obviously means ending the life of a fetus (in the biological sense), you have to prove that the fetus does not have a claim right to life. Saying "we don't know" risks committing an intrinsically evil act which is impermissible. Hence, you have to either prove that (1) not all innocent humans (note, that I don't use the term "human person" indicating that human is used in a biological/scientific sense) have a right to life; (2) the fetus isn't innocent; or (3) only human persons have a right to life and a fetus isn't a human person. Of course, you've already discussed how we can't know whether a fetus is a human person or not. I'm honestly interested though, is it (1) or (2) that you believe? Or something else?Ok I’ve read that and I find it not really worth commenting on as it’s just another’s opinion on the matter which fails to address my basic argument which everyone totally ignores in favour of addressing what I’ve repeated ad nauseum........A fetus is reliant on a mother for sustenance , a fetus has zero rights to sustenance from a woman , a fetus is granted this sustenance by permission of the woman , this permission can be withdrawn at any time Why do people assume that they can tell a woman she cannot abort and thus deny a woman a right over her own body in favour of an assumed right a fetus should have ? If a fetus had a right to life why should it’s right supercede that of the woman ?