I’m not a lawyer, but I’m going to recommend that you not put into practice your theory that it is legal to execute trespassers, even children. You may discover the local district attorney does not read the law quite the same way.

If those children are trespassing, then they are at the same risk an adult would be in trespassing. It is not the responsibility of the property owner to determine the age of a trespasser before taking action to protect his or her property. The only responsibility the property owner has is to ensure that a trespass has, in fact, happened, before taking those actions.

I cannot speak to the inadequacy of the law in this case. The right to property is absolute. If the law does not recognize that right, then the law is defective. If you do not perceive that the mother’s womb is her property alone, then there is no way to discuss the issue with you.

The rest of your arguments rely upon prior assumptions that I do not share, and thus do not recognize as valid.

I am curious, does this right to kill trespassers extend to children post partum? If not, why not?

A fetus may or may not be a convenient passenger, but she cannot be culpable as an adult interloper is, nor is it self-evident that the interior of the womb is the mother’s property alone. That analogy only holds if one has already reached the conclusion that the mother alone has the right to “choose.”

If it’s not enough that the church has always forbidden the practice, one need not reach a conclusion about the humanity of the embryo-fetus-baby’s humanity to oppose abortion. The “slippery slope” and “build a fence around the law” arguments are pretty strong. Unlimited abortion may cause social and cultural degeneration in ways both predictable and unforeseeable.

Forgive me, a sinner.