First thing's first, I'm going to respond from my personal perspective of what it should be, not what the actual laws say. I know the laws do not agree with me and I do not agree with the laws.
I believe that if the only way that you can force them to leave (immediately) is through lethal force, then you have the right to do so. In this situation, I believe that you have a duty to exercise the "gentlest" reasonable way to remove them.
With regards to abortion, this means that a woman has the right to have the fetus removed at any time, but, if there is a reasonable (and economical) way of removing the fetus right then without killing it, that should be the option required to be taken. That is, currently it may not be possible to perform an abortion at certain stages without the fetus's death being inevitable. But, if technology progresses such that it is feasible, economical, and reasonable to remove the fetus alive and incubate it or whatever, then that should be required.
I believe there are times that murder is OK. The death penalty, self defense, etc.
It's not possible at any stage, all abortion makes the death of the baby inevitable.
This simply isn't true. Well, depending on how you define abortion. Regardless of what you call it, I'm saying that if the goal is to kill the fetus, that's not OK. If the goal is to remove the fetus, then that's OK, even if killing it is inevitable. If/when technology progresses enough for it to be reasonable to remove the fetus without its death, that should be the option taken.
First thing's first, I'm going to respond from my personal perspective of what it should be, not what the actual laws say. I know the laws do not agree with me and I do not agree with the laws.
I believe that if the only way that you can force them to leave (immediately) is through lethal force, then you have the right to do so. In this situation, I believe that you have a duty to exercise the "gentlest" reasonable way to remove them.
With regards to abortion, this means that a woman has the right to have the fetus removed at any time, but, if there is a reasonable (and economical) way of removing the fetus right then without killing it, that should be the option required to be taken. That is, currently it may not be possible to perform an abortion at certain stages without the fetus's death being inevitable. But, if technology progresses such that it is feasible, economical, and reasonable to remove the fetus alive and incubate it or whatever, then that should be required.
I believe there are times that murder is OK. The death penalty, self defense, etc.
This simply isn't true. Well, depending on how you define abortion. Regardless of what you call it, I'm saying that if the goal is to kill the fetus, that's not OK. If the goal is to remove the fetus, then that's OK, even if killing it is inevitable. If/when technology progresses enough for it to be reasonable to remove the fetus without its death, that should be the option taken.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with this semantics argument. You understand what I'm trying to say.