Hmmmmmmmmmm unless, of course, that movie has a sequel...

Begging the question requires some kind of fallacious reasoning using a conclusion as a premise. That's not the same thing as stating a fact. To state that a fetus has a human genome and is living is merely describing or characterizing the state of being a fetus exists in. It makes no claims about the metaphysical status of the fetus itself. Contrary to what you say, it's very scientific and very objective. This is indisputable and self-evident. Now, the debate depends on whether you think being of the species homo sapiens is enough to receive the right to life, or whether the entity has to be a human person (defined in the metaphysical sense). To that point, you say it doesn't matter how I define a fetus. I say it does. If we're sincerely interested in truth and morality it would matter whether we are destroying something that has a right to life because that would be called murder. Murder by most moral constructs is inherently evil, and grossly more objectionable to violating bodily autonomy. To be fair, I think your bodily autonomy argument deserves equal open-minded analysis as well. If we can conclude that a pregnancy is violating a woman's rights then abortion as a solution deserves more consideration (assuming of course that we're not committing murder by doing it). If you just de facto say "I really don't care how you define a fetus a woman's rights trump those of a fetus," well that's neither compelling nor good-willed. The fact of the matter is that this issue effects everyone, and everyone involved in the debate matters. If you just pick sides without actually hoping for some truthful answer, or are close-minded you're partaking in an incessant war that benefits no one. The same is true for pro-lifers who mindlessly defend an issue they don't understand. I'll get off my soap box.

Regarding your bodily autonomy argument, this is the same argument found in Beverly Wildung Harrison's "Our Right to Choose," Rosalind Pollack Petchesky's "Abortion and a Woman's Choice," and many works from Judith Jarvis Thompson. They all mistaken a liberty right for a claim right. The former can be laid out as follows: B (e.g. a woman) has a liberty relative to A (e.g. a fetus) to x (e.g. terminate a pregnancy), iff A (fetus) has no claim right that B (woman) should not x (terminate a pregnancy). A claim right would be laid out as follows: A (all innocent human beings) have a right that B (another person) should x (forebear intentional killing) iff B (another person) has a duty to A (human being) to x (forebear killing). Of course, the claim right is true because few would make the claim that an innocent human being shouldn't be protected from random killing. Hence, they have a right to not be killed. A claim right, a right in the strict sense, discusses the actions of other persons (i.e. another person) not of the right holder (i.e. the innocent human being) Meanwhile the liberty right we laid out earlier depends on the action of the right holder, the other person/entity, and the action. The woman only has a right to terminate a pregnancy iff the fetus does not have a claim right that the woman should not terminate the pregnancy. Because terminating a pregnancy obviously means ending the life of a fetus (in the biological sense), you have to prove that the fetus does not have a claim right to life. Saying "we don't know" risks committing an intrinsically evil act which is impermissible. Hence, you have to either prove that (1) not all innocent humans (note, that I don't use the term "human person" indicating that human is used in a biological/scientific sense) have a right to life; (2) the fetus isn't innocent; or (3) only human persons have a right to life and a fetus isn't a human person. Of course, you've already discussed how we can't know whether a fetus is a human person or not. I'm honestly interested though, is it (1) or (2) that you believe? Or something else?

Actually, the fetus is quite active. It's constantly moving the parts it has from the moment it's a zygote. To compare free floating food in a stomach to a fetus is to misunderstand fetal and embyronic physiology quite a bit.

No. The difference between the two is an existential one. No one disputes than an ear is a human life because ears exist to serve the organism as a whole. It's functional, it's an organ designed to serve the organism. A fetus is different because it's existence is not tied to serving an organism as a whole. It is the organism; it has organs. My point in saying that the fetus has different DNA than mom and dad was that it's not just an organ like an ear or eye.

But individuality is not defined by spatial separateness. We know this because we could view two adult conjoined twins as two separate human lives. The fact that we intuitively are able to separate the two indicates that there's likely some other factor besides being disconnected that makes an entity individual.

You incorrectly apply the "begging the question" argument from the pro-choice action network (http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/fetus-focus-fallacy.shtml) to my argument about fetus = human life. So, 1: the begging the question argument applies to the question of fetal personhood. That's not what I'm saying here. I'm saying that a fetus is a human life by definition: i.e. it has a homo sapiens genome and it's living in a biological sense. To deny this is to either be ignorant or to be intellectually dishonest. We can therefore affirm that the fetus is a phase in human life, and start to talk about what that implies in terms of rights. To dispute this, you have to either redefine "human" in a metaphysical sense (i.e. personhood) and claim that a fetus is not a person, or you have to make arguments about the "just one phase" clause of the question. Also, if you're going to claim a begging the question, you have to be able to identify which clause is flawed. Your argument here doesn't do that. It claims the fetal personhood argument is begging the question then says women should have the say in the matter. Whether or not that's correct, it fails to warrant its claim and is just poor form.

Another question: how does knowing someone is going to commit a crime in the future make them guilty of something in the present?

Fair enough. I just couldn't tell if you were referencing the topic or not. It's true, we know Hitler will be evil in the future. Even then, at the present time the baby would be innocent. Real questions (not arguments): How do you justify administering retribution, particularly death, to someone who's totally innocent? Why is that morally preferable to waiting until they grow-up and start to conspire? Moreover, why kill them? Wouldn't altering their life in attempt to prevent that person from deteriorating to evil in the first place be preferable since no death is involved?

Any good reads on this matter? For personal inquiry/understanding.

Just to clarify, the argument goes: Given that A and B have a moral right to bodily autonomy: If B provides for A, and the provision is inherently tied to B's body, and B is distinct from A, then B has a morally protected right to withdraw/terminate it's provision to A if B so chooses.

1) Since a mother (B) provides for a fetus (A), and

2) That provision depends on the mother's (B) body

3) A mother (B) is distinct from the fetus (A), it follows that

_

4) The mother (B) has a morally protected right to withdraw her provision from (A)

What am I missing/misinterpreting?