If the not-yet-born are living human persons then no one has the right to murder them. End of discussion.
As to your claim of pregnancy being a threat to "bodily security", what does that even mean?
Bodily security is also called bodily integrity or bodily autonomy. It's the idea that the use of - or risks to - our bodies can't be compelled without our consent.
It's the reason why you can't be forced to donate organs or tissue, or to participate in a medical study, or to risk your own life to save another. It's why you have the right to refuse dangerous work.
The female human doing exactly what it was designed to do is somehow a threat to their "bodily security"?
Your religious beliefs about what God "designed" things to do are your own business, not anybody else's. If you think God is telling people not to get abortions, then don't get an abortion. Don't try to impose your religious beliefs on everyone else unless you're prepared to have all their beliefs imposed on you in return.
Even if it could be deemed such, it's not as though any woman is getting pregnant accidentally (excluding non-consensual encounters).
Everyone knows that sex leads to baby humans.
Is the idea of continuous consent completely foreign to you?
Consent to sex isn't consent to becoming pregnant. Consent to becoming pregnant isn't consent to continuing the pregnancy. Consent to continuing the pregnancy at one point isn't consent to the entire pregnancy.
The alternative is the logic of the rapist (
"yeah, she said 'no' while it was happening, but she invited me up to her apartment - what did she think was going to happen?").
Let me ask a hypothetical so I can wrap my head around your claim.
If someone with a peanut allergy were to willingly eat a product that they knew "may contain peanuts" and had an allergic reaction, they can claim that the product was a threat to their "bodily security"?
Would it be reasonable to deny them access to an Epi-Pen on the grounds that they "consented" to anaphylaxis by choosing to eat peanuts?
They can blame the product even though they understood how their body worked and that there was always a possibility that they would have a reaction if they consumed it?
Can I claim that a bad bowel movement is a threat to my "bodily security", even though it was my choice of diet that led to it?
To you, what isn't a threat to someone's "bodily security"?
I think you know full well that your ridiculous examples have nothing to do with bodily security.
No one has the right to murder.
There are occasions where a person has a right to kill. There are many more occasions where a person has the right to withdraw themselves from a situation even if a death will necessarily result.
I am advocating that no one should make decisions concerning the bodies of the not-yet-born.
Just because someone cannot speak for themselves, that is no reason to assume that they don't want to remain alive.
Your fantasies about the wishes of fetuses would still be irrelevant even if they weren't baseless. *I* can clearly articulate that I want to live, but despite this, I have no right to demand that my mother's organs, tissue, or body in general be used to sustain my life against her will.
Even her
corpse is afforded this right: if it's her wish that she not donate her organs, then any organs she has that could have saved a life will be buried with her and whoever could have been saved by them will die.
Even the wishes of dead people supersede someone else's right to life. Why do you want to deny pregnant people rights we even grant to corpses?
If it will help with your compassion, it might be useful to remember that every woman was once a fetus.
