Let me reverse the argument (for funzies). If you're a citizen and you're a property owner, ie, you occupy somewhere that belongs, at least in part, to you then shouldn't that place be protected? Shouldn't your rights to a private lift free from interference by any other citizen be protected?

It is not a foetuses fault that it came to inhabit a home that technically belongs to someone else. It did not choose where to live, it did not choose to remain there - and is only a short term renter. If it occupies a position of 'demi-citizen', and it's rights are reliant on another person entirely then what protections should it be offered in law. If one could advocate for it in a court of law, wouldn't you ask for a restraining order from its landlord until such a time where it can be re-homed?

How important is the right to life in your argument here? Couldn't it be argued that those people who are illegal immigrants are in fact the same sort of demi-citizens. They cost full citizens money to sort out, they cost full citizens emotional labour, they are a threat to the democratic body. If you could make that argument, would you be happy to execute people at the border?

obviously I've pushed this to the extremes - but that's the fun of being an argumentative Penguin. We do that ;o)