Human Rights

I fear you may have picked a bad analogy here..It is your problem if you have cause that person to be in your house (against their will) and put them in a situation where they have dependancy on your 'Hospitality' for their very existance.

I'm treading a fine line here, because this issue is one I have real problems forming a solid opinion on.But your analogies are flawed. So.. whose 'will' was involved? was there any free will in this situation? For sure Not in the impregnation.
But the will of the consenting adults brought about the risky situation which gave the opportunity for the conception to occur.I feel like I have argued this point re Adam and eve's free will with Iano a few times. Then I felt that God was guilty of bringing about the circumstances of the fall. I think the same opinion applies here inso far as the parents brought about the conception of the child/embryo. or rather they took the risk knowingly. again.. this all revolves around intent on the part of the intruder.
The only intent in an unwanted pregnancy was the intent to have sex, and the intent to knowingly use methods of contraception know to be less than 100% effective.Of course untill agreement is reached on the status of the embryo as person or a clump of cells (which is strangely barred from this debate) the argument remains impotent (pun intended)

So..
If a man and woman have consentual, protected sex.
While outside, in a futuristic car(for pleasure), while smoking a cigarette.
But still get pregnant.Should they have the baby in a restaurant?
or..
terminate it and have some of the pie that was cooling on crashfrog's window?sorry.. it's been a long day

Ok.. so consider that it has free will. How can it act on it's free will? If it 'decides' that it doesn't want to be there what can it do? If it decides that it wants to stay what can it do? Unborn babies react to stimuli, move about when uncomfortable etc etc. (without being able to communicate or enforce its "will") much like a newborn does. A new born child may have free will, but has no capacity to act on it other than to wave it arms and crap itself."will" and "ability to act or communicate that will" are two different thingsBut we're now heading into the realms of the human/not human debate.
I think RiverRat was naive to expect that it not be a part of this debate.If the embryo is to be treated as a clump of cells or a vestigal organ that must be removed. then there is absolutely no problem.
If it is to be treated as a person then there are issues.before you go getting all "hoity-toity" I'm coming down on either side of this. I was originally just pointing out that your analogy with a burglar doesn't really hold here.

That's not what I said I feel it's morally wrong to destroy an animals life. RiverRat has stated stated that he felt that was an exception along with rape, for the purposes of this dicussion.. (at least he did in the PNT). Regardless.. not all pregnancies are harmful. So.. what exactly do you see as being the difference between a late term foetus, and a newborn baby?Both are fully dependant on a 'parent'
Both cannot really exert their will or communicate their wishes.
Both are living.This is where I have problems with this issue.Does the newborn have responsibilities? can it be held accountable for its actions? or, is it ok to terminate it if you decide it's unwanted?

that's an entirely different discussion But the woman/man involved are responsible (through their intercourse) for that 'human being' being there. therefore I see it as their responsibility to ensure the welfare of that 'human being'If you get me in a situation (intentionally or by accident) whereby i am dependant on your actions for my survival. Is it moral for you to ignore my welfare? given that I wouldn't be in this situation if it weren't for you?for example.. you drive into in your car, an inquest shows that although unintentional, you are at fault. I now depend on your insurance or your money to pay for my life saving hospital operation.
By your logic, you have absolutely no responsibility to ensure my welfare. I'm not sure that I said the zygote is a 'fully fledged' human (whatever that is). but I certainly don't think it is responsible for its own existance in any way.

{ABE: If you had the skills, and if in fact you were the ONLY person who had the required skills, do you not feel you would be obligated to use them to save my life?}Financial or moral... you have a responsibility to do whatever you can to help me seeing as you put me in this position.
admittedly I would draw the line at endangering your own life. I'm not sure I have a definite 'position' to disagree with I would suggest that very few, if any, abortions were carried out as a result of a womans fear for her bodies 'resources'. except in life threatening situations.Edited by Creavolution, : inital paragraph added toEdited by Creavolution, : No reason given.

and if I was say.. 1 day old child?we're heading toward the crux of the whole matter here. at what point does the clump of cells become a human. good question, we take risks all the time, walking on a busy street, driving a car, riding a motorcycle, getting pregnant... It would be interesting to see what the biggest killers were

You've approached this topic from a very strange angle IMHO,Firstly:
I don't see how you can exclude the issue of morals in one breath and in the next talk about infringing the personal freedoms of another 'person' in the next.
the two are inextricably linked. And both are certainly core to this topic.Secondly:
Dicussing this without a clear opinion/position on when the fertilised egg becomes fully human is pointless, untill that is decided you may as well be having your appendix removed.That said I think the 'burglar' or 'trespasser' analogies here are seriously flawed.