AJ,

When the potential mother (host) engaged in sexual intercourse with a male and with complete freedom of choice and an understanding of the reproductive system then she gave the right to sustenance to a potential foetus.
The baby is not an invasive species to be defended against where the above holds true, everyone has the right to kill invasive species, be they internal or external.

After birth, I agree that there is no right to the direct use of the mother's body for sustenance (although medical opinion is on the side of breastfeeding, at least for the first few weeks/months), however the right to some form of sustenance continues and if it is denied and death results then a murder charge is the likely outcome.

AJ: "If the child who has already been born does not have the right to use its mother’s body against her wishes, then neither does the unborn child."

Mommie: Yes, I gave birth to you, but no, you can't suck my breasts to live.

You also can't waste my body energy making me walk to the kitchen to get milk from the fridge.

So, I'll just watch TV while you starve to death.
My rights trump yours, junior!

Is Mise,

I have already granted that a foetus has a right to life, but there is still the issue of consent. The foetus does not have the right to use the mother’s body to survive without her consent (the same goes for after the child is born), and consent cannot be implied through the knowledge that pregnancy is a possible result of engaging in sexual activity, as the measures required to guarantee that an accident will not occur are unreasonable.

--

Shockadelic,

Your analogies are fallacious appeals to extremes based on a creative and absurd interpretation of what it means to "use" someone else's body.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/30/Appeal-to-Extremes

//Address the point you are making.//

Well I kinda already have, but sure, OK:

Sex outside marriage is fine, even for Christians (although apparently not all of them). It's not dangerous, unhealthy, indicative of mental illness, a weakness of character, immoral, illegal or even sinful. It's just good clean wholesome fun between consenting adults. And it doesn't automatically lead to conception or the Pox because the good lord has blessed us with medical science.

Furthermore, I'm curious to know what you think gives you the right to go sticking your interfering beak into other people's private arrangements. Surely people have a reasonable expectation of privacy behind closed doors without the Purity Police peering in through their windows to make sure that nobody's doing it unless they've put a ring on it? It's not just the authoritarian, one-size-fits-all approach of pro-abstinence movement that annoys me: it's also downright creepy. Who ordained you to take such an unhealthy interest in the sex lives of strangers?

Your rebuttal, sir/madam/other?

//"Abortions are ok because sex is fun."//

Yeah, I've never said that.

Making shite up now are we? That's not going to get you very far.

What I've said is that sex is OK because sex makes people happy, without harming anybody else or infringing on their liberty to pursue their own happiness.

AJ,

".... and consent cannot be implied through the knowledge that pregnancy is a possible result of engaging in sexual activity, as the measures required to guarantee that an accident will not occur are unreasonable."

Consent can be and is given by engaging in sexual intercourse; the requirements against accidents are not at all unreasonable, I've been engaged in the pastime for the last 68 years and never made a mistake yet.
Adults engaged in any sporting activity are responsible for their own mistakes and the outcomes thereof.

To say that the foetus has no right to the sustenance of the mother's body to sustain its own life is just a load of codswallop, in fact, the mother has a duty to safeguard the foetus until it can be safely born.

Toni Lavis.

You say you've addressed your points, but yet again avoid the topic of abortion. Outside of trying to gain a reaction on my religion or on being "Cromwell" (whom I had to look into to see if he had anything to say regarding abortion or sex; didn't find anything) the closest topic addressed for your support of abortion is that sex is fun. So no, I don't see that you've addressed any points for why you support abortion. Abortion kills. My point on avoiding sex until mariage (which you twisted to say I hate sex or that being anti sex is my position); was made because I see sex pushed in our culture, and it shouldn't be. As far as I can tell your entire point in this conversation is to not take a stand, but still try to trip up those who are against abortion.

What other conclusion can I make for why you support abortion if you don't disagree that abortion kills, except to give the point that closest matches the topic. You support abortion because sex is fun. If this is your position then sorry to say you sound like a dude-whore. If this is not your stance then yet again I ask to address the point of the topic. Why you are ok with abortion even though it is baby killing.