Argument for Limited Abortion - The "Weirdo" Argument

[Dimmesdale]

Let's say a "Weirdo" starts involuntarily occupying your house. This Weirdo is a human, but for some reason, he is completely oblivious to his actions. He is unyielding in his occupancy. Furthermore, he is unstoppable through any non-lethal means of evicting him. Only a bullet from a .22 Magnum can get rid of him. And yet, the Weirdo does not do any direct moral harm. He is simply a great inconvenience to the occupant, and is bound to him for life. Unless deadly force is meted out, the Weirdo will remain a burden for natural life.

In the same way, a fetus may be regarded as an uninvited occupant of a woman's womb, at least in the case of rape. If we are justified in removing the Weirdo even if he does not cause harm, only inconvenience, should we not reserve the right to nullify the existence of the fetus if it similarly presents a life-long burden or inconvenience?