Reply to thread

Very simply the baby owns the right to live and the mother owns the right to live. Neither one has the right to kill the other.

The fact that their lives are intertwined does not change the fact that one should not have the right to kill the other.

If two twins are conjoined then they two are dependent upon each other. Especially if they share some vital organ. But I would never say that one has the right to kill the other even if one were not viable without the other.

And saying that the mother does not have the right to kill the baby does not mean that the baby controls the mother. The government should control her actions in so far as it does not allow her to kill people. The government controls men in the same way as it does not allow them to kill people either. Where did you get this idea that if it has a right to life that it owns the mother? It doesn't own the mother, it just should not be killed. People have responsibilities to each other and it does not mean that people own each other.

If we say that fathers and mothers both must be treated the same as it regards unborn baby's should a father be allowed to kill his unborn child? Even if the mother wants it to live?

So do I have a better point at which a baby has a right not to be killed? Yes. When it is a person.