The mother has the same rights respecting such a thing as she does having a wart excised. If allowed to persist, the wart will do her harm. If an outside agent forcefully prevents her from removing the wart, that outside agent is doing tort harm. Your claim, like all such claims, is based on the implied sacredness of fetuses, as opposed to warts. This is undemonstrated--it is simply a religious claim, and it only has force for those who believe in it, it a a primary assumption, not a logical deduction.
Yikes! This is what you think of the human fetus? No wonder we can't get anywhere with you. Religious principles aside, most Western philosophers and ideologs see an intrinsic superior value of the human mind over all other things in the known universe. You see the developing human mind as of no more importance that a virus. Communications.......out.
The mother has the same rights respecting such a thing as she does having a wart excised. If allowed to persist, the wart will do her harm. If an outside agent forcefully prevents her from removing the wart, that outside agent is doing tort harm. Your claim, like all such claims, is based on the implied sacredness of fetuses, as opposed to warts. This is undemonstrated--it is simply a religious claim, and it only has force for those who believe in it, it a a primary assumption, not a logical deduction.
First of all, I cannot believe you are comparing a fetus to a wart. That shows your depth of humanity.
Second of all, I'll give you a scientific reason why a fetus and a wart are not one and the same, or worthwhile of your pathetic argument: a wart does NOT have it's own, independent heartbeat when it is severed from a human's body. A fetus does.And that, my friend, is a "logical deduction."