Stating a fact - is not getting pissy The above is getting pissy Look - It is one thing to have a personal moral position - quite another to force that belief on someone else. It is not that I disagree with or do not understand your moral position - what you lack is "an argument" that justifies forcing that belief on others. I posed the question a number of times now and you continue to talk over that question as if it did not exist. I made the same argument you did. Fox came up with a response - paraphrasing " Is there a time limit on the right to self defense" ? The answer to this question is not as "obvious" as you would suggest. The "if a woman puts up with her partner beating her .. does she void her future right to self defense" is a sound argument (in all its ramifications). I do not claim that there is not a way around this argument but, I have not yet found one. Correct - but, this is also true in reverse - the fetus's individual liberties end when they threaten the life of another. And I have responded to your suggestion ... what you have not done is addressed Fox's response (see beating example above). I made the same argument as you have done initially - Fox's response challenges this argument. How is the potential death, not relevant ? If you have a cough and I say - "take this pill - its unlikely but it has the potential to kill or harm you" do you not think twice about taking that pill ? Perhaps you think it is better to to try and tough it out (take lots of vitamin C and so on) rather than taking an antibiotic (and in all but the most serious cases you would be correct. In this case your cough might effect those around you so I could say... for this reason I am going to force you to take the antibiotic. Do I have this right ? I could strengthen my case and say "suppose you infect someone that has a challenged immune system such that getting a cough could kill them" As Fox points out - the statistical probability of women wanting abortion late in term is very low - such that women doing this should have their heads examined. Suppose under examination this woman says that she had a dream - and in that dream she died in childbirth. I feel that somewhere there is a refutation to the self defense argument but, it is certainly not obvious and you have yet to come up with one yet. You cant just say " Its only a potential" This is not an argument .. you have to explain why "Only being a potential" is sufficient. If it was a ridiculously small/insignificant potential (say on the level of being hit by a meteorite) I would agree with you but, its not. You yourself have admitted that the potential is not insignificant. We are into a bit of a grey area here. Can we say "Well its a small potential so the rights of the child win out" ? What is "Small" and is there not a slippery slope here. 1 in 10 is "small" but, would you willingly undertake an activity where there was a 1 in 10 chance of death or risk of harm ? Do we want to start giving the state power to be able to force people to subject themselves to the possibility of death (or harm) on the basis - "its only a small potential" ? Should we bring back the draft on the basis that "there is only a small potential" of death ? My solution is to let the people decide. In general the legitimate authority of Gov't extends only to acts that are injurious to others. In this case it would seem that the Gov't does have some legitimate authority once we "legitimately" classify the fetus as a "child/person". This authority however is challenged by the fact that it is a conflict of rights and it is a grey area. As such this takes it out of the legitimate authority of Gov't. In such cases you must default to "we the people". What is required (and I can explain why this is later) is not a simple majority mandate (as this would be tyranny of the majority). What is required is an overwhelming majority ( at least 2/3rd's or even 75%). This would satisfy the criteria for legal legitimacy. If it is so obvious ( as you say) that in the later term the risk of death/harm is deemed to be low enough that the rights of the unborn trump the rights of the woman then, it should be easy to garner an overwhelming majority.