That's fine. The unborn baby has a claim to itself then as well. How can you put the woman's claim ahead of the baby's, especially when it is typically the woman's decision to get pregnant?
It has a claim to itself as soon as this claim is not dependent upon its mother's pre-existing right to self-ownership. Rights cannot overlap. The fetus's rights cannot begin until the mother's (pre-existing) rights end. I would argue that this occurs not at conception but at the moment when the mother's exercise of her own right does not necessarily lead to the fetus's death. I would further argue that a woman retains this right during the entire pregnancy, but that it may not result in the death of the fetus beyond such a time when the fetus may survive
outside her body.
It may be my decision to give $5 to a homeless man, but that doesn't mean he has a continuing right to such care.
Remember, rights are a negative thing. The fetus has no right to receive the care upon which it is dependent, in the same way that I have no right to anything of yours. It simply has a right not to be murdered or otherwise aggressed against.
Incidentally, the difference
is one of ends, although only the means are truly of concern. While the fetus will necessarily die without its mothers's body before a certain point, it may be that there are people or organizations willing to provide for a baby who survives past this point. To actively kill is to eliminate such a possibility.
This is completely different and for obvious reasons that aren't worth addressing. The bottom line is that the child has no life except that it was given to them by their parent's.
Given, as in, no longer possessed by the parents.
On the contrary... are you saying parents don't own their children? That if the child desires to go elsewhere then that is up to the child? How about a 2yr old that wants to plat in the street. It has right to do this?
Yes, it has such a right. It is, however, more than likely dependent upon its parents and, lacking a right to the care they might provide, must accept the parents' rules upon which such care is conditional.
You'll find that the ramifications of my position are similar to your own in many respects except perhaps the most fundamental. The sole difference is I see no reason for a person's rights to be held by their parents until an arbitrary age of majority (decided by whom? Society, which has no business interfering in family business? The parents, who may decide to never rescind their proprietary claim at any age?). I believe it is the right of every individual to decide when he is no longer dependent, and to take aggressors to court.
My preference is not for a state of affairs in which the government seizes children, but for one in which young individuals may decide to declare independence from those upon whom they are dependent, and, having declared such independence, be free to make claims of civil and criminally liability against any who should harm them.
And, preference aside, any parent who would rape their children (which does happen) or beat them to the point of permanent physical damage ought to be prevented from such aggression. How best to achieve that within a framework of right is indeed a difficult question. Not impossible, I would say though. Perhaps the best state of affairs might be to have charity organizations willing to care for children whose dependency would be otherwise contingent upon such treatment.
Frankly, though, I tire of this discussion. Nobody ever convinces anybody of anything when it comes to abortion and the rights of a fetus.
