[Hajman]

Yes, that's correct, which makes me wonder what the point of this post is. I said the mother's rights should be weighed in the balance with more consideration than the fetuses. This seems to me to be rather obvious, but perhaps it is not.

But when you take into consideration what rights there are, the mother has none that trumps the fetus' right to life.

The fetuses right to life could, on account of that consideration be pushed clear back into the womb, by a very generous take on this bundle of rights, but pushing it to conception is absurd. So, in my humble opinion, by no doubt sheer coincidence, the present law is probably about morally correct in striking the balance between fetal and mother's rights.

The present law is based off of falsities. It's false in itself. There's no such thing as a mother's right to not be inconvienced (as many abortionists claim).

-The Hajman-

[donh]

But when you take into consideration what rights there are, the mother has none that trumps the fetus' right to life.

You can't have this simply by stating it over and over. The fetuses right to life is substantially diminished compared to a full citizen, and does not automatically outweigh the mother's enslavement, battery, and theft of service. The right to life is not a binary switch, with only two values. It it something requiring adjudication.