Won't somebody think of the fetus!

Or my voyages into the strange land of secular pro-lifers.
Alerted to them by various people on the blogosphere, I decided to go and see for myself what they look like.
If you're curious, go to their blog.
If you want to get the Full Monty for non-sequiturs, read the post on why they think shit about a woman's bodily integrity. But I warn you, you are a troll by default.
So, being interested in what if not baby Jesus can make the fetus a superhuman, I engaged in  discussion. My question was that if I granted the blastocyte/embryo/fetus full personhood and human rights, why on earth should they have more than any other being on this planet. I'm not forced to donate blood, plasma, bone marrow or kidneys, so why should the fetus* have a right to access my bodily resources.
The short answer: because you didn't keep your legs shut, slut!
The commenter, Simon, engaged in a longish exchange about this, trying to give me various analogies as to why I owed the fetus something.

Having said that Anon is wrong you aren't giving the foetus more rights, rather similar 'rights' to other moral agents; and using established moral precepts of moral responsibility and compensation that are already used in society.

It is actually similar to the violinist but instead for consented sex it is the violinist being kidnapped and attached to the individual through the casual consent of that individual. Since you have caused existential dependency you owe compensation to keep the individual alive and since the only compensation applicable is the continued use of the body it isn’t unreasonable to make that the payment. It is only in rape the this doesn’t hold.

So much for the human rights of the fetus. It forfeits them for the crimes of the father. It's kind of funny to see pro-lifers try to get around that problem. Or it would be, if it weren't so damn serious.
You will see a pattern emerge here that Simon couldn't get rid of:
Sex is a crime. At least if you are a woman. He is for full social wellfare so fathers don't have to be burdened with child support:

 No I advocate cancelation of all direct child support for everyone male and female because sicne you have cancelled the male’s stake in his offspring you have effectively cancelled his moral responsibility for said action. Moral parity would demand no say no pay.

I mean, hey, woman, you had sex. You owe the fetus, you have moral responsibility!
Hey, man, you don't own the kids anymore, no consequences for you therefore.
But they really don't hate women...

He tries again:

Thinking about it we can still full moral rights to a rape foetus but unless we force everyone to abrogate bodily autonomy to save a life, those full moral rights are trumped by bodily autonomy when no moral responsibility is involved.

Keep. Your. Legs. Shut. If you don't, you owe the fetus. If you didn't actually consent to the sex, the fetus is out. But if you actually had consensual sex, you have forfeited your right to bodily autonomy.

I tried to argue that the established moral precedent is that you owe legal responsibility (also, the creation of the fetus seems to cause harm to the fetus in and on itself) and financial compensation, but you never have to sacrifice your body. Just. Doesn't. Happen.

So, we're talking kidneys now:

...what if -using an argument put forward by a Pro-Choice philiosopher David Boonin- YOU CAUSED an infant to need a organ transplant or they will die and you are the only match?

You could choose to let the infant die and you go to jail -or maybe even executed since you might be in Texas-or you donate the organ?

You caused the harm/dependency you owe compensation.

Again: having sex = crime, or at least reckless, becoming pregnant = harm. Will you be surprised to say that he didn't get when I pointed out that the crime or reprehensible act actually happened before the question of the kidney arose and is a criminal act indipendently of whether I choose to donate or not?

He also totally isn't equating sex with crime, no no:

& no as I see it having sex isn't the crime, nor getting pregnant. It depends on the analogy.

It's all about the analogy. Funny thing is, when I learned about analogies, they were supposed to be likewise or equal scenarios, especially when talking about morally reprehensible/criminal acts.

So, since I didn't like his previous analogies, he tries again:

If you caused a infant to need an organ transplant because you stored toxic waste in their home and you were the only one who was the match; are you saying you shouldn't be punished? But hey you didnt intend for that to happen so you aren't responsible.

Sex = Storing toxic waste
Pregnancy = Punishment

But, you see, the problem is me:

Looks like you cannot understand the analogy, the point of the toxic waste was to show it was an indirect causal event that lead to the harm, he didnt intend to give the kid a disease. Next Boonin points out even when we cause indirect harm we are morally responsible and can owe compensation. It might not have precedent but the underlying principle is still there.

Again, my body seems to be the appropriate compensation.
After all I'm responsible.

Oh, and talking about responsibility...
Question:

Also, do you think that women should be held criminally accountable for damage they caused to the fetus during pregnancy because they smoked, drank, handled a dangerous toxin?
Should a woman who has a traffic accident and consequently suffers a miscarriage be punished like a woman who runs over a 6 year old?

Answer:

Nxt Ano Troll yes I think a woman should be held accountable for such damage and there are in fact laws to that effect in some countries. & yes if she has a accident through negligent driving she should be punished as others in fact are by child destruction laws in my state.

Charming, isn't he?

So, his toxic waste didn't win me over, so he needed something better. This time his analogy contained sex!

So the act of having sex means you are immune to punishment or moral responsibility? Say a partner who knows they has HIV has sex thats ok no punishment because sex is normal?

So, yeah, having sex is just like infecting somebody with a deadly disease on purpose. If you're a woman, of course.

Also:

Ano Troll thanks for demonstrating you are such a douche.

That's me. I'm a bit proud of myself

There was a bit about that fucking "post birth abrtion paper". I knew we'd get that crap rubbed in  our faces. Now we want to kill real babies!
That's because there's actually better eating on them.

*I'm just using fetus from now on, I can trust you to know the differences