[mvpel]

"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment...If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment." -- Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe vs. Wade, 1973

That's all well and good, but does even a legally-recognized PERSON have the unlimited right to the use of another person's body for as long as necessary? The Thirteenth Amendment is also part of the Constitution, remember, along with the Fourteenth.

I don't think the legal issues are as cut and dried as some people think they are. It won't do a lot of good to finally get the courts to recognize the personhood of the fetus if fetal homicide is then just considered another form of justifiable homicide.

[EternalVigilance]

That's all well and good, but does even a legally-recognized PERSON have the unlimited right to the use of another person's body for as long as necessary?

Parents have a moral and legal obligation to protect and care for their children.

We're not barbarians.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

That's all well and good, but does even a legally-recognized PERSON have the unlimited right to the use of another person's body for as long as necessary?

In the overwhelming majority of cases where the child's use of the mother's body as home and nutritional source (i.e. pregnancy) was initiated willingly by the mother (i.e. consensual sex), then I might say yes.

You might call it entering into a contract of sorts.