[Hajman]

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.

A human is not a wart, by any stretch of the imagination. You're really reaching for arguments here.

(Sorry for the delays. When it takes over 45sec for FR to respond, it's bad).

-The Hajman-

[donh]

A human is not a wart, by any stretch of the imagination. You're really reaching for arguments here.

This is not responsive to the thrust of my argument. You claim the woman can't treat the fetus like a wart, and that certain legal officials can therefore interfere by force of arms. Your claim is based on sacred knowledge inaccessable to a skeptical objective observer.