[Hajman]

I don't understand it in any context. You can't have "sort of" absolute rights. Either a thing is or it isn't.

Apparently your problem is understanding what these rights are in the first place.

If a fetus has absolute rights to life, then it bulldozes the mother's rights, if it doesn't, than the mother's rights are on the table, and lacking devine intervention, her rights are obviously quite a bit stronger than a fetus's rights. It is devine intervention, or sentimental intervention that supports the argument otherwise, no matter how well wrapped up in spurious claims of logic parsing.

The mother has no rights to be trumped by the unborn baby's right to life. If you think she does, then tell us what they are. Don't just say she does. What rights of the mother are specifically trampled by the unborn's right to life? Specifically.

-The Hajman-

[donh]

What rights of the mother are specifically trampled by the unborn's right to life?

I already so specified. If a stranger did to a woman what a baby does, it would be considered a horribly intrusive crime akin to kidnapping, slavery, rape, battery, maiming, and theft of service. This is plainly the case. The argument against this rests on implied consent, which is a thin modern disguise for the older argument that it's what she deserves for having sex.