I'm going to ignore the fact that you insinuated that I was stupid, again (though I'm glad that you've dropped the tone).

I actually don't think you're stupid, I think you're the latter. I think you are intentionally pettifogging the issue.

I'm going to ignore the fact that, rather than taking just a second to write out what you mean by 'use', you elected to tell me to grab a legal definition of 'use'. ("The fact of being habitually employed in a certain manner.", which is still quite vague, and most certainly is applicable in my two examples).

And I am going to ignore that you are still trying to pettifog the issue. By the amount of downvotes you have, and upvotes I have, I am going to have to assume my message is clear.

And I'm going to ignore the occurrences of you refusing to address the point and going off on some tangent.

And I am going to ignore that you keep saying I am off point, or not making a point, when my point has been repeated a million times like I am a fucking parrot. No living thing has the right to force you to use your body in order for it to survive. This is the basic fundamental bodily rights and autonomy that every person is granted.

Firstly: you really need to write down a definition of the word 'use' as you are intending it. please.

We're not playing this game, it's clear what I meant.

Secondly: I have yet to state that I support or oppose abortion. My argument is and has always been that abortion is not a women's rights issue. I find an argument on whether or not a fetus is alive to be vacuous, because of the horribly ill-defined meaning of human life. I am also not going to present an argument on what is or isn't moral, because I have yet to see a justification for any moral action from a logical standpoint.

The logical standpoint is clear, and it's why abortions are legal. We can not, and we will not, force people to use their bodies in order to keep another living being alive.

Thirdly: It's important to note that, through inaction, the baby will survive. That's a highly integral nuance. You have to go out of your way to kill it.

It's not about killing a life, it's about exercising the mother's right to not be forced to keep another living thing alive using its body. It sucks that it will end up with the death of a "potential human life", but that's the way it has to be. The only other option is to tell the woman that her body is no longer hers anymore for the duration of the pregnancy. And that's not something the law is prepared to do, nor should it.

If a horrible car accident happened, and, after surgery, you and someone else shared a lung, do you reserve the right to kill the other on merit of them using your body to survive? Does the permission to commit murder go to the person whose lung is being used, who wasn't responsible for the accident, or some other criteria?

You're right, it's a shit analogy. One that needs more information. Who's lung was it originally? Why wasn't I asked before I was forced to share a lung? If it was my lung, and they were only alive because they were sharing it? Are we conjoined and sharing a lung now, or did they illegally remove my lung without my permission to keep someone else alive?

Additionally, I made the assumption that you were downvoting my replies because they would receive exactly one downvote within a minute of my posting, and then no others. I think I am validated in assuming that your character was such that you would do that, considering your first reply's douchiness, and the fact that you continually claimed that your arguments were objectively true. That being all I know about you, I believe my assumption was made on very solid ground.

Assumptions you make about a person you don't know are never made on solid ground. Welcome to the internet.