Rdrivera, I agree people will never come to agreement on that. The point I am trying to make here is that just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are 'unreasonable'. I think that much of the problem in politics and culture in the US is that people view those who disagree with them as either unreasonable or enemies, when thats not always true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_punch

rdriverra2005 - You bring up the argument that I addressed earlier about personhood as distinct from human life. While I disagree with the pro-abortion crowd here, what is not a resonable position is that abortion does not kill a living organism of the genus/species homo sapiens.

DingleberryJones - I dug up something for you. Here is an article on the biological definition of human life: http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/images/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf

If you can find anything that indiciates that human life begins at some other point that is significantly later, feel free to post it here.

This fundamentally comes down to where you draw a line in the sand.

Some would draw that line at conception. Some would draw that after the first trimester, some would draw it after the second, and some would draw it only after birth.

I mean, one could make a similar argument for all of all of those, and probably a few more.

Nobody has brought up anything about how life is precious.... because that is an argument that the average Westerner can't really defend. Unfortunately, life is cheap, and has been since the dawn of time.

But on another note, I'm not in favor of more abortions, but do feel a woman has the right to control the processes of her own body up to a certain point. (I just had a law class that discussed Roe v Wade for about a month, so I'm up to my eyeballs in this crap). I don't think you would be able to find many people who would be saying we need MORE abortions. I'd just rather have that option for women in clean, safe clinics rather than with a coathanger in a back alley.

Nola,
Do you think it is reasonable for someone to have NOT read the article you just posted for me? Do you think its reasonable that someone might be ignorant of the 'scientific definition' of life? Do you think that possibly people might be less smart then you, and have come to conclusions that, while you may view them is ignorant, might be 'reasonable' given their circumstances?

DingleberryJones - It is possible to be ignorant of the science of life, but that does not make the position reasonable, it makes it ignorant. It is no different than someone telling me that "You can definitely drive from Los Angeles to Sacramento in an hour or so, they are in the same state, so they can't be that far apart." While this statement might seem reasonable (they are in the same state), it is in fact not reasonable because it does not take into account the fact that Los Angeles and Sacramento are almost 400 miles apart. Thus the statement would be ignorant, not reasonable.

I would agree that a person's position might seem reasonable to them, but if someone is presented with factual information and chooses to deny it, then their position is no longer reasonable. Also, for purposes of policy debates (of which this is one), it must be assumed that all participating parties are knoweledgeable of the factual information surrounding the debate, and if they are not, then they must be willing to accede when presented with that information.

Nola,
That paper that you gave me comes from an institute self-described as "Anchored in the classic perennial and Catholic view of the human person, our moral inquires are first and foremost of a scholarly nature. " I'm not surprised it conforms to your view.

DingleberryJones - I am aware of that. Generally it is the Catholic Church (and similarly interested parties) that have papers on this topic. Why would a pro-abortion group spend money putting together a paper that said human life begins at conception? As I stated before, if you can find material that significantly disputes this position, you are welcome to do so, but if you can not, then (since the paper is presented by a number of PhD type scientists) you more or less must accept the position presented as a matter of science.

Nola,
I am truly saddened that you are so close-minded. While I totally support your right to your views, I feel it is truly a shame that you believe that anyone who disagrees with you must by definition be unreasonable. I feel continuing this discussion is pointless; not because of your views on abortion, which again, I completely respect, but because of your views on dissent. Since I support people's rights to have both views (regardless of my own view), I must therefore be unreasonable. Why you even engaged in this discussion with me I cannot understand, since I am obviously completely unreasonable.

DingleberryJones - Nothing like the ad hominem argument. Always fun to see those come out. You may have not read my previous post before posting yours (that happens to me sometimes too), but it is not close-minded as you put it to demand that people accept factual information as such. Rather, it is disingenuous to continue to argue about something when you have been shown to have a position that is factually wrong.

As far as the overall debate goes, I have no problem continuing that, but on this particular topic (when human life begins), there is nothing really to debate because the matter is already settled. If you would like to debate personhood as distinct from human life (which is the argument actually made by the pro-abortion crowd) or the value of human life, then that is debatable, but this particular topic (biological beginning of life) has already been settled.

"just as much right to life as any other child who depends on others for support."

I strongly disagree with this statement.

An infant, which requires a LOT of support, still can breathe on it's own, get nutrients from places other than directly through the mother, and be cared for by anyone. Until a fetus can be removed from the mother, I think the mother can decide what to do with it.

@nola2172 - Why would a pro-abortion group spend money putting together a paper that said human life begins at conception?

Well, I suppose I would ask more generally if you really expect a paper which has its conclusions determined in advance to be taken seriously. You're right - a pro-abortion group probably wouldn't invest money in deliberately proving that life begins at conception (allowing that this is something one can "prove" in a meaningful sense), and similarly, you wouldn't expect an anti-abortion group to fund the contrary. However, I hope we can both agree -- and I assume we can, since you seem to place such a high value on 'scientific fact' -- that actual research isn't funded with the intent of making a specific point in advance, but rather sets up the control environment in such a way that the outcome is only biased by the value of the variable realities being tested for.

And, if we can agree on that, I think you'll admit that a blatantly anti-abortion group finding a few Catholic PhDs to throw their names on a "paper" with a pre-determined conclusions is as bunk as when the Creation Institute finds a few PhDs to try to lend credence to a "study" that proves the Grand Canyon could've been formed in 40 days.

@ KaptinKool "I believe that the fetus, having its own set of unique human DNA and considering its rapid state of development throughout the pregnancy..."
Ok, so you grant the fetus (some) rights.
Some questions arising from this:
1. Why is human DNA intrinsically better than animal DNA?
2. Has it rights at contraception, or do they develop during the period

“I mean critical risk (which I feel was fairly blatant given the context) where doctors have assessed the risk, and recommend termination for the mother's survival.”
Ok, so what is a critical risk? 100%, 50%, 20%, 1%?

"I'm STILL exhausted from the one about 5-6 months ago.

Orathaic may agree." - i agree. very long and detailed discussion if anyone wants to go look at it.

- own set of unique human DNA - to which identical twin and human chimarism were brought up (wher one person has their non-identical twin atached to them and they grow to become one person but have two sets of DNA from their parents)

'why should an irresponsible teenager be given the power of life or death over a "potential human" ' - why should this potential human be forced to come into existance with this irresponcible teenager as a parent?

'when you have an abortion you are destroying another body, its just not fully developed yet.' - if you starve yourself the baby will most likely spontaneously abort (someone medical may be able to confirm this) this is perfectly natural too as your body protects itself - if you can seperate the baby from the mother without killing it and implanting it somewhere else would that be better? the point being while it is dependant on the mother it is not viable and does not have equal rights (and yes this extends to children, they do not have equal rights while they are dependant on their parents - a lot of rights in our society very with age.)

anyway, go look up the other thread.

@Dingle - I tottally agree with you. Both points of view are reasonable considering the arguments and the background of those who are discussing. You will choose one based on your moral and ethics and religious backgroung and not based on right or wrong or good or bad, friends or enemies.
My wife is pro-live, I am pro-choice, I know she will never do an abortion and we live very well respecting the other ones point of view (and using contraception, lol).

@Nola - I don´t know if you are a scientist or a Phd yourself, but don´t give that much "certain" to papers or even to science on general. They mostly try to prove something that the scientis (or its sponsors) want to prove. There is no consensus on what exactly is human live and neither on when it starts. I have seen "scientists" diverge on that when debating abortion, stem cell, cloning and alikes.

Father's rights.

Funny that my position has been attacked with nothing more than "your source is bad" or things like "you can't trust science." No actual direct refutation of any sort.

Here is a another source with a bunch of quotes from Senate testimony (from a pro-life site admittedly, but again, if it is actually true that life begins at conception, then why would a pro-abortion site have that information):
http://www.humanlife.org/abortion_scientists_attest.php

Some good quotes from the pro-abortion crowd that show even they know abortion is killing:
http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony

I will repeat my challenge from last time, however, for someone to find a source that actually says that human life begins at some moment other than conception (or the vicinity thereof). I am going to take a stab and say you won't be able to find this, because if this information did exist, then the pro-abortion crowd would be keeping it front and center. Otherwise, any continuing arguments are based on what you want to be true and not what is true. It is a fallacy to think that because you have an opinion, it is somehow of value. Opinions are only of value when they are not contradicted by the facts.

human life began at the big bang, it is a well know fact. All potential humans were concieved in God's mind at that point, all possible futures and quantum divergent universes were then known, and in the last 13.7 Billion years they have developed (as you can see)

Also Humans are very important, but what else are we not protecting? our cousins the great apes. All ENDANGERED by our activities - any closer hominids are now extinct.

Further What about they large number of other intelligent creatures on this planet? The only successful ones are those we have found uses for. Pets? well dogs are used to herd sheep, and i'm sure that originally developed as a hunting technique. Elephants are used in place of advanced machinery, to fell trees. Dolphins are just kept in pools or study and entertainment - though in the wild they have been seen to show compassion for other animals in plight.

That some Dolphins are willing to help other animals shows their ability to feel empathy - they can imagine what it would be like to be in trouble and do something about it. Have we managed to lose this skill?

Whilst I'd be willing to accept the definition of human life (and in fairness scientific definitions of life of any sort are often weak and open to debate) favoured by nola and a significant proportion of scientists, it would be at the expense of my usual insistance that all humans are equal (which uses a very different definition of human). The essence of the debate would continue onwards essentially unchanged. An early stage unborn human cannot in my view be compared to a newborn baby, child or adult. To do so risks devaluing humanity.

Octavious - Thank you for accepting the position I presented. I agree with you that the debate centers around the "value" of human life, not when it begins. I have found it useful, for purposes of this debate, to use the word "personhood" or something to that effect to differentiate between biological human life and human life that is somehow "complete" or full or something to that effect.

Now, I personally think that it makes no sense to differentiate personhood from our humanity. To do so means that anyone, in whatever stage of their life, is at risk for being "worth" less than someone else if we choose to define them as such (because if we are allowed to make definitions arbitrarily, then they can be changed). It is only when all human life is considered valuable that we are not at risk for devaluing humanity.

@TheGhostmaker - I think that as a human race we can agree that there are many reasons that human DNA is more valuable than any other DNA. To begin with humans are the only organism where we have observed first person consciousness. This is important because we know that human life has intrinsic value beyond a simple will to survive. Whereas you may argue that that is the root of everything we do, humans have developed emotionally to a point where we observe life as meaningful and act not solely out of a will to survive but out of a will to enjoy our survival. We value not only our life but the lives of others, and a fetus is a potential human that shares our DNA, why would it be excluded from the right to life that it would gain 9 months later after birth. I would like to hear why a baby that has been just born would have more claim to life than a fetus that will be born as long as its mother doesn't kill it prematurely. Fetus' are human life set in motion as a consequence of peoples actions, whether or not it is fully developed is not important.

Now for your second question, I am not a doctor and will not pretend to have a good idea of what is reasonable. All I would say is that if doctors agree that the woman is better off aborting for her safety (as in the chance of death is fairly imminent pending an abortion) then I would consider that as a plausible cause for abortion.

TO ALL USERS:

Okay, I read this argument several times, however I don't want to look back to see who all said it (I think Stukus might have been one?).

Anyways the argument is that society will have to care for these unborn children whose parents don't want them. That would be a really good argument, but the adoption market in America is so undersupplied it is amazing. Now adoptions would cover roughly 30-40% of abortions, but I don't buy that every mother would give her child up for adoption. Just because people don't necessarily want children after they get pregnant, doesn't mean they shouldn't have to have children, people need to have responsibility passed on to them when they screw up.

How about this view:

First of all, let's assume there is a God and we are all His children. Don't debate this. It's not the issue at hand. Let's also assume that existence doesn't start at birth or conception, but is eternal. Our spirits always existed and always will. We are given bodies and temporary forgetfulness when we come to this earth, to this life, for a unique experience of being given the opportunity to choose between good and evil. This life and the opportunity of choice that it brings to us is essential to our eternal development as children of God.

God has given us a pattern to follow in order to bring His children into this life so that they also have this opportunity, and that pattern is marriage and sex. In this way each child of God has a loving father and mother who will protect, nurture, and teach them to choose good over evil.

Irresponsible use of our God-given sexual power is a great hindrance to God's pattern. Those who choose to be irresponsible and accidentally conceive have accidentally created a body for one of God's children. Taking that body away from them denies that child the opportunity to come here and have a normal life.

The legal issue is important, but legal or not, abortions will happen. And whoever chooses that path (the mother or supporting father and/or grandparents; in short, all involved) will be held accountable before God for their choice to abort His child. And I'm afraid ignorance is no excuse. Deep down everyone knows it is wrong.

Having said that, I also believe there are situations where abortion may be the best choice: rape, incest, and when the mother's life is in jeopardy. But two irresponsible people who can't control themselves have no excuse.

@nola Let's not get too carried away. When people use the definition of human that I personally prefer, and is in quite common use, the debate is very much about when it begins. But, differing definitions aside, the chance of us coming to an agreement is a small one. As much as I admire your passion, I could never support your position.

Octavious - I was only referring to you agreeing with my position that organisms of the species homo sapiens begin life at conception. I would be interested in what you mean by "human" however if you mean something other than that. That is why I used "person" to distinguish from "human". I think it is clearer if human -> homo sapiens and then person can be the term that we choose to define as something potentially different.

Another thought:
I spent two years in the Philippines as a missionary. At one point, I was responsible to interview those who have a desire to be baptized. One of the baptismal interview questions asks if the person has ever been involved in an abortion.

One night, I interviewed an woman in her late 40s. When I asked the abortion question, she broke down and sobbed for several minutes while she tried to answer my question. When she was 17, she and her friend both got pregnant around the same time. They both got abortions and they never told anyone else, not even their parents. She cried and cried as she told me this. This woman had spent the last 30 years wracked with pain and remorse of what she had done. I have never before or since seen such regret.

Abortion is certainly about choice. Choosing abortion will bring heavy consequences to the individual.

@KaptinKool – “I think that as a human race we can agree that there are many reasons that human DNA is more valuable than any other DNA. To begin with humans are the only organism where we have observed first person consciousness. This is important because we know that human life has intrinsic value beyond a simple will to survive. Whereas you may argue that that is the root of everything we do, humans have developed emotionally to a point where we observe life as meaningful and act not solely out of a will to survive but out of a will to enjoy our survival. We value not only our life but the lives of others, and a fetus is a potential human that shares our DNA, why would it be excluded from the right to life that it would gain 9 months later after birth. I would like to hear why a baby that has been just born would have more claim to life than a fetus that will be born as long as its mother doesn't kill it prematurely. Fetus' are human life set in motion as a consequence of peoples actions, whether or not it is fully developed is not important.”
Ok, firstly, by talking about “we”, meaning humans, you are already beginning an exceptionalism. Thus you are begging the question. Could a non-human intelligent life form argue similarly: we aliens only experience alien consciousness, therefore all aliens are better than all humans....
In addition, what stops the woman from saying that “my DNA is more valuable than my foetus’ because I am the only organism where I have observed first person consciousness”? Indeed, on any matter I can make that argument, and thus can justify my stealing somebody else’s medicine (my DNA is more important than his)
Though not a biologist myself, I can say with confidence that your wish to distinguish between human DNA and animal DNA in general, but not to distinguish between one human’s DNA and another’s is very weak.
I think probably the strongest thing you can do for your position is to say that the human DNA is not the important factor. If that is what makes the foetus human, let me introduce some other humans to you, just to illustrate:
1. Gestational choriocarcinoma
Here we have a fertilised egg, with human DNA. However, it does not develop into an embryo or foetus, but rather develops into an undifferentiated invasive and metastatic cancer (in the uterus and brain, pictured in the links below). Nothing else is produced, and ultimately this tumour will kill the mother if left untreated. Under your system, because this has human DNA, and specific human DNA too- only this tumour has that DNA, this tumour is a human, and we should consider it to have intrinsic worth.
http://museum.med.monash.edu.au/pics/S3U3.jpg
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/path/web_docs/p200/GYN200/GYN0408.jpeg
2. Hydatidiform mole (aka molar pregnancy)
Again, a zygote that never develops into a foetus; instead, as pictured, it develops an undifferentiated mass of foetal tissue, often causing potentially fatal eclampsia. It also can become cancerous, since it sometimes develops into choriocarcinoma.
Of course, if human DNA is all important, this fine fellow is to be protected:
http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/Notes/images/week2/hydatidiformmolelabel.jpg
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/path/web_docs/p200/GYN200/GYN0405.jpeg
3. Scleroderma
Last one, this is an autoimmune disease. The patient suffers from fibrosis (excessive scar tissue) in various parts of their bodies, including skin, heart, lungs and muscles. Analysis of the blood of patients with this tissue tissue shows that it has foetal monocytes with human DNA distinct from that of the patient’s. We can know that it is foetal from the fact that it can have Y-chromosomes, which rule out a connection to the patient’s own mother. The immune response to this distribution of cells causes the terrible and incurable disease.
However, since these cells have human DNA, we should consider them intrinsically valuable.
The fingers of this patient are almost totally unable to move due to the scarring:
http://www.ecureme.com/atlas/data/dis_images/Scleroderma550_ab.jpg
This is actually the heart of a scleroderma patient. The white scar tissue has almost totally replaced the cardiac muscle.
http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~excs597k/carpenter/images/restrict.jpg

And this list is by no means exhaustive. Nor is it considering grossly ill-formed foetuses that are potentially dangerous and certainly unable to develop, but nevertheless, have human DNA.
Never mind your balance of harms argument for abortion in exceptional cases, you are still making the assertion that, if these things weren’t actually dangerous for the mother, say, merely uncomfortable, it would be morally wrong to kill them because they are as separate an organism as a foetus, and just like a foetus, have human DNA.

“Now for your second question, I am not a doctor and will not pretend to have a good idea of what is reasonable. All I would say is that if doctors agree that the woman is better off aborting for her safety (as in the chance of death is fairly imminent pending an abortion) then I would consider that as a plausible cause for abortion.”
You are evading the question. When I ask you to start talking about percentage chances of death, I am assuming the medical knowledge, and reducing it purely to the consideration of the relative values of the foetus’ life and the mother’s life. If it were a 1% chance that the mother dies, would that be enough for you to advise your wife to have an abortion?

@Beetle Bailey you said: "But two irresponsible people who can't control themselves have no excuse." And these are the last two people who should be having kids. If someone is so unready to have a kid that they are willing to go through the ordeal (physical, mental, and emotional) that is abortion, then I'm willing to believe that they have good reason to not have a kid at that point. Besides - it is not my decision to make. Where nature aborts pregnancies routinely and some species actually reabsorb the developing embryo in times of stress and famine... I'm willing to think that we, as intelligent creatures, can make some conscious decisions of our own of a similar nature. At least with those decisions being conscious, they have a chance of appropriate more often than if they weren't conscious.

All human beings include as one of their rights to have control over their body - to exclude others from meddling in the operation or free movement of their body, and to remove foreign objects living or not, and to alter their body as they desire (and can afford). To restrict movement or force things on your body is to imprison, rape, torture, you. Your rights over your body are central to your rights as a human.
A person is sovereign over his/her body... it is your nation/your world.
What happens within your body is your business alone.
A zygote/embryo/fetus is within the body of another and can only be there as long as it is welcome... because your rights over your body are central to your rights as a human. The fact that the removal of a pre-viable embryo/fetus results in the death of the embryo/fetus is unavoidable other than through the limitation of the rights of the woman over her own body... the limitation of the most central rights as a human. If a woman is to have rights equal to a man they must include the right to an abortion... because to deny the right to an abortion is to limit the rights of that woman to control her own body. And to deny someone control over their own body is the deepest violation of their rights.

Dexter_Morgan - On your 4:01(EST) post, you more or less state that the complete right of a person over their body (which, by the way, is not true in any society, I will get back to that) completely trumps the rights of the person who is living inside them. I would argue that the right to life supercedes the right to anything else because without the right to life, other rights have no meaning.

Now, on the the "you can do what you want with your body" issue - that is just not true. If I want to cut off my own hand, for instance, there is no way that anyone in medicine is going to do this for me (unless it is diseased), and if I do it myself, I would probably be committed to an institution because we would assess (probably correctly) that I have some sort of mental disorder. In addition, we have all sort of prohibitions on what we can and can not do with ourselves (you can't take certain drugs without permission, or other ones at all, suicide is illegal, etc.)

In addition, in the vast majority of cases in which abortion occurs, the mother underwent an intentional act in which she, as a result of an exercise of her own will, ended up with a new life inside of her. If I were to invite you into my home, I can't just shoot you when I want you to leave, I am actually legally obligated to ensure your safety as you both enter and depart. Now, inviting someone to live inside of you is obviously a bit more personal, but that is what happens as a result of sexual intercourse, we invite pregnancy and we should then have to deal with the result in a decent (i.e. not killing the other person) manner.