>>85
"The essential political question concerning abortion is: does the fetus have a right to be in the body of a woman against the will of the woman? Or: does a woman's body belong to her, or to the government to forcibly dispose of in favor of the fetus?"
Wrong. The essential political question concerning abortion is: does the fetus have a right to continue development after the woman's actions have 'invited' it inside her. The fetus has no choice whether or not to be inside her. The woman's actions, in having sex, will create a developing fetus inside her. The question is not whether or not she has a right to her own body. The question is whether or not the fetus has the right to continue development into a full human being once the mother has initiated its development through sex.
"Doesn't a fetus have a right to be inside the body of the woman?"
The issue is not whether or not it has the right to be inside the body of the woman, the issue is whether or not it should have that right once the woman has created it, since after that point we see a 'point of no return', i.e., that thereafter, unless she continues development, her actions will afflict another individual - the fetus. Considering the fact that her actions more or less invited it there (yet it didn't come there of it's own choice, and obviously couldn't have DECIDED to), you can't blame the fetus for being there, and in any instance in which it can be shown that the fetus is sentient or can feel pain, it is wrong for abortion to be allowed since it was ultimately the woman's decision which got it there to begin with. Essentially, we have women who want to make up for the mistakes they made (such as using inadequate contraception while having sex), by having abortions, which come at the expense of the rights of another individual, the fetus.
"A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission."
The fetus is there entirely due to her actions, in accepting the man's seminal fluid without using adequate means of contraception. Thus, a woman who has an abortion is infringing on another individual and its right to life, so that she can make up for her mistakes she has made in the past without screwing up her personal life.
"This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body."
No, because once she has initiated the creation of the individual, it has the right to life, and more particularly, the right to continue developing and be born, since to have it removed would be to kill it. She is entirely responsible for the fact that it is there, and she must allow the individual to continue to grow and be born, as aborting it would be an infringement upon its right to life.
"There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave."
The fetuses life is dependent upon the woman continuing to allow it to develop. If the woman decides not to allow it to continue developing, and to have it aborted, it will obviously die. Since the woman is responsible for bringing the individual into being in the first place, and initiating this development, she should not be allowed to indirectly murder it by removing it from her body. If she didn't want it there, she should have used adequate methods of contraception in the first place.
"Contrary to the opinion of anti-abortion activists (falsely called "pro-lifers" as they are against the right to life of the actual human being involved)"
They are called "pro-lifers" because they recognize that life begins at conception.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=pro-life
Though there are various degrees of pro-lifeness, yet that is the bottom line.
"a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church)."
This has entirely nothing to do with whether or not the woman owns her body, this has to do with whether or not she can deny life to a developing individual once she has initiated its creation, effectively denying it its right to life.
"Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb."
The fetus has a right to continue to develop and reside there until being born, as the woman's actions are responsible for its creation, and once this process of development has began, it cannot be stopped without destroying the second life created by the woman with the man's seed.
The fetus has no choice whether or not to begin developing in the first place, the responsibility to keep it from developing and becoming a live, seperate individual is the woman's because it is her body, and thus her responsibility to take care of it, not the man's.
If the woman does not keep it from beginning development, she has issued an 'invitation' undeniable to the fetus, afterwhich the fetus begins development, and after which to abort it would be destruction of life.
"What applies to a fetus, also applies to a physically dependent adult. If an adult—say a medical welfare recipient—must survive by being connected to someone else, they may only do so by the voluntary permission of the person they must be connected to."
That is different, because the welfare recipient is there due to the consequences of their own actions. The fetus ( a developing human life ) is not in the woman due to voluntarilly committed actions. To deny it the right to continue to develop at that point would constitute a violation of its right to life, and to continue development into a full human being.
"There is no such thing as the right to live by the efforts of someone else, i.e., there is no such thing as the right to enslave."
The fetuses actions were not what resulted in its being there, the woman's were. Once the woman has begun this process of life development, she must not be allowed to stop until giving birth, as to do anything else would be to penalize another individual, taking away its rights, at its expense, for irresponsible actions committed by the woman.
"Abortion is an inalienable right."
The right to violate the rights of others is not, and cannot be a right.
"Abortion is not a violation of any right, because there is no such thing as the freedom to live inside (or outside) of another human being as a parasite, i.e., against the will of that person."
Abortion is a violation of the fetus' right to life. It is not against the will of the woman, since her actions are responsible for it being there. If I could drag an individual from society into a submarine, and somehow he would have no choice to follow, then dive down far under water, would I have the 'right' to throw him out of the submarine, even though doing so would obviously result in his death? I have the right to my submarine, and I can throw him out of I want to, right?
Such is the nature of abortion. The fetus is inside a vessel (the woman's body), not resulting from its own voluntary choices, but from the choices made by the vessel owner, and to expel him from said vessel at this point would destroy his life.
"This principle applies to both fetuses and adults. As a woman has a right to choose who she has sex with (as her body is her property), so is it a woman's right to choose what can and cannot remain inside her body (as her body is her property). As it is evil for someone else to dictate the use of her body by raping her, so it is evil for someone else to dictate the use of her body by forcing her to remain pregnant.
As their is no such thing as the right to live inside another, whether the fetus is removed, because of incest, or rape, or "convenience" does not matter politically—whatever the reason, it is the woman's inalienable right.
"Abortion is not murder, because a fetus is not an actual human being—it is a potential human being, i.e. it is a part of the woman."
This depends on when you think life begins, at birth, at conception, or possibly somewhere in between, such as at sentience, consciousness, or at the time the baby begins able to feel.
"The concept murder only applies to the initiation of physical force used to destroy an actual human being, such as when "pro-life" terrorists bomb abortion clinics."
Or when an abortionist dismembers a developing human being inside a woman's body.
I'm not gonna respond to the rest of your post because it is too damn long and I just don't feel like it.