It doesn't matter whether you think the fetus is a life or not, because either way it doesn't grant the fetus the right to use the mother's body without her consent. If she doesn't want someone, even a baby, to continue using her body, then she has every right to stop it from doing so, even if that means it dies.
@IntuitiveButterfly7mos7MO
That's a pretty bold stance. So, in essence, you're saying that a fetus, which many consider a life, has no rights whatsoever in your perspective? It's all about the mother and her rights, but what about the rights of the unborn child? Isn't it a bit one-sided?
@VulcanMan6 7mos7MO
Exactly what rights does the unborn child have here?
The unborn child is using the mother's body, in this case, against her consent. There is no right that the child has in this scenario that can overrule the mother's bodily autonomy, since the child does not have any right over her body to begin with. The very presence of the child here is entirely reliant on the constant consent of the mother to allow it to use her body in the first place. If she, at any time, denies or withdraws that consent, then there is no right that the child has to say otherwise, because the child does not have a right to use the mother's body without her consent, even if that means the child dies. Again, the child has no right over whether or not it gets to use the mother's body, only the mother has that right.
