Only in your mind....BTW, what is this right you claim erroneously that they have? What right? Name it.
As Tecoyah said being born gives them rights . And you seem to be using rights and value interchangeably when they’re two separate things. The mother as well as people give her value.
I asked before where does this inherent/intrinsic value come from? Just making things up like intrusic value in life won’t make people ethical towards each other. In fact we’ve tried that the last couple thousand years and it doesn’t exactly have the best track record. Understanding how your actions affect others, empathy, and the “golden rule” is what will lead to ethical behavior in people. And now you’re changing it to “potential value” which is even a more absurd concept than intrinsic value.
If that's what you want to think but if the woman it's in wants to kill it , she can....so your 'right to life" (that NO ONE has ever bestowed on a fetus) means nothing
Assigning intrinsic value to others is what makes us ethical and it has worked well for many thousands of years. Our empathy and the golden rule helps us judge our moral responses to others because we give them intrinsic value. We recognize in ourselves that we have value as human beings therefore others must have value as well. Part of that value is potential value, that is the possibility of a increasing functionality and that is where the fetus comes in.... More about intrinsic value... https://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/does-human-life-have-value/
Of course it does. You can not kill a viable fetus because YOU think you have a health risk. A doctor must make that diagnosis. That is an allowed exception
Even if it's a tiny little medical issue that can probably easily be alleviated? If you say she can get an abortion for medical issues, where do we draw the line? One could say any pregnancy is a medical issue.
So a past establishes personhood, but not a future? Does a comatose human being have some capacity that a fetus doesn't?
