//Your argument verges on the absurd for a fetus cannot use anything so is not using the mother's body but is dependent upon it.//

Like a tumorous growth.

//The fetus, as you would be well aware does not possess free will so cannot make a decision.//

Like a tumorous growth.

//The legal matter to which I aluded involved a man unknown to the mother doing damage to the unborn child in a public place and IIRC by accident.
The law recognized that the fetus was a lgal entity etc.//

So if the unthinking foreign body growing inside you inside you is a tumour, cut it out. But if it is a fetus, leave it be.

What do you do if it is a teratoma?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/27/teratoma-tumour-evil-twin-cancer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratoma

Is Mise,

You must really be getting desperate if you’re now playing irrelevant semantical games.

<<Your argument verges on the absurd for a fetus cannot use anything so is not using the mother's body but is dependent upon it.>>

There are a few creatures without brains (and therefore, no free will) in nature that “use” other things to survive. To suggest that something cannot “use” something else because it lacks free will is ridiculous.

Toni Lavis's example using tumors is good.

<<The fetus, as you would be well aware does not possess free will so cannot make a decision.>>

The definition of the word “use” does not require the exercise of free will nor the making of a decision (http://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=define%3Ause).

<<The legal matter to which I aluded involved a man unknown to the mother doing damage to the unborn child in a public place and IIRC by accident.>>

If your only point here is that the foetus is a legal entity, then great. That still does nothing to discredit my arguments. If the woman wanted the baby and the other party’s actions were negligent, then yes, some sort of legal action would be justifiable.

<<The law recognized that the fetus was a l[e]gal entity etc.>>

So are corporations, but they don’t have the right to use people’s bodies against their wills in order to survive. Nor be dependent on them, for that matter.

<<So save the humour.>>

What humour?

Dear David,

<<Faith in something like the existence of a God is something else. There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any God.>>

Obviously so: one ought to have faith in God - not in the existence of God.

Existence is a secular term which only secular people may be interested in. One who has faith in God keeps repeating: 'Thy will be done', so they have no reason to be invested in mundane outcomes. For such a person, silly questions of existence or the lack thereof never even arise to cloud their minds.

David prefers to have bling faith in his view of the world, and cannot accept research into historical reality. Perhaps it comforts him as he faces the reality of death that his future is over.

It is paradoxical that some abhor the death caused on innocent persons by terrorists while supporting without question the surgical death of a healthy innocent unborn. Ask any woman who lost an unborn child during a pregnancy what she felt about the child she lost by spontaneous abortion. She lost a child, not a tumor. Ignorant men are gullible.

Dear Josephus,

You wrote: “David prefers to have bling faith in his view of the world, and cannot accept research into historical reality.”

What research into historical reality have I not accepted?

You also wrote, ”Ignorant men are gullible.”

What is your evidence that ignorant men are any more gullible than educated men?

Josephus,

I think I have adequately differentiated between the victims of terrorist acts and aborted unborn children, with their playful childlike kicking about in their mother's womb.

<<Ask any woman who lost an unborn child during a pregnancy what she felt about the child she lost by spontaneous abortion. She lost a child, not a tumor.>>

Of course. But that doesn't negate anything I've said. It's just a fallacious appeal to emotions.

Speaking of spontaneous abortions, it seems your god is happy to abort unborn children but doesn't like when we do it - an infanticidal god who takes an immoral do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do approach.

By the way, the term "blind faith" is a bit of a tautology. Kind of like someone saying that a statement is the "real truth". I don't think we need to be adding the "blind" in front of faith.