The point I was trying to make is that the analogy seems appropriate for me because in the instance of a refugee, their choice is dictated by circumstance without any real ethical volition on their part.
Again, please accept my apology.
OK, sir, no problem. Thanks for clarifying it. Sorry if I jumped in with both feet on the rebuttal.
I think we're essentially in agreement on this. I focused more on the intruder-guest analogy and overlooked the refugee part.
It is true that establishing any kind of moral culpability in a situation that results from natural circumstances or happenstance is unsupportable. The unborn child makes no conscious decision as to whether or not to come into existence, and makes no decisions as to where and under what circumstances its initial development occurs. Thus, applying moral shading to the unborn's position is specious at best. The moral accountability must lie with those who undertake acts of their own choice in regard to the unborn. In that sense, there is a parallel between say, the actions of a host regarding an invited guest, or the actions against an intruder by someone being intruded upon. In those cases, use of lethal force can be ethically justified in a limited number of cases under very limited circumstances. And, offhand, I would say those would include the right to a legitimate defense of one's own existence, the well-being of loved ones, and a few others, but certainly not among them would be the destruction of innocent life for convenience (choice).