It is hard to know where to begin to respond to something so bizarre but this shows how far one has to go even to attempt to justify the wanton destruction of a human being. Even the language used shows the strangeness of the concept. The phrase “who resides in her uterus” is a tacit admission that there is a who, a person, in there. Even on its own terms this concept fails.

A woman having sex does so with the full knowledge that, despite precautions and perhaps against her wishes, the result of the act could be the creation of a child. It may be true that the child was not invited in but it is surely true that the child is there because of the action of the mother and the mother has no more moral right to destroy the child in her womb than she does to destroy the child in her home. The woman may well be dissatisfied with the situation of an unwanted pregnancy but since she is the one responsible for the situation she is the one who must bear the consequences.

**************************

how would you respond to an anti=choice argument like this?