Demosthenes, do you have the right to say whether a cripple can live or die even if your the cripples father or mother? no you don't whatever happened to the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? all those are taken away from the baby!

i look at it like this
the womans rights vs the baby's rights and the baby's life well i guess the baby wins because of life...

__________________
support search and rescue... Get Lost

go Coast Guard

This is blunt, however needs to be said. How about spunks right to live? after sex, when only one sperm can fertilise should the others be collected up and saved for their right to live?

"the womans rights vs the baby's rights and the baby's life well i guess the baby wins because of life..." - what rubbish.

Lets face it a foetus has as much rights as a used kleenex, it's just part of the reproducive process.

& lets not forget, living isn't a riht, its a privlage.

Haven't watched those video yet, eh Myopic?

What I want to know is what gives you the right to tell a woman that she has to have a baby that she doesn't want to have? What right does the state have? You honestly believe that you can force a women to go through morning sickness, bearing a child for nine months, and giving birth so you can sleep better at night? Do you honestly believe that the state has more authority over a woman and her body than she does? If you do, you have a funny idea of individual liberties.

-Demosthenes

__________________
"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

You make the point exactly - what right does the State have - unless we presume the individual is a chattel of the State.
The rights are divided between the mother and the child her body will bear. The question is whose rights should prevail.
Since the mother lived within the body before conception and will remain within the body after birth/abortion whatever.. the mothers decision is critical and should be treated as the final decision on whether to go full term or not.
We see everyday people who think they know best - not for themselves but for everyone else. They rarely do know best, they are usually seen as interfering busy-bodies. In this instance with such a serious matter we need to protect women from the busy bodies whose well intentioned but misguided opinions would deny them their sovereign right of choice.

__________________
Free Speech measures the idiot by what he says
Censorship measures the idiot as equal with the Sage.

Well I'm glad at least someone out there agrees with me.

-Demosthenes

__________________
"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Apparently the state has even more right than that Demosthenes, as shown in the case where the woman was convicted of refusing to be SLIT OPEN for a C-section, which was the only means of birth her baby would have survived. In other words, not only is a woman forced to endure NATURAL processes (the hardships of pregnancy you described above) for the sake of a new potential life, but now she has to endure whatever intervention or UNNATURAL measures are necessary to ensure the survival of her baby. To me the latter case is clearly unreasonable.

But in light of the fact that suicide is illegal, I guess that tells us right there that sovereignty over our own bodies is just a pipe-dream. Why would a person expect to have any more rights over her body when it involves another (potential) human being's life?

__________________
"The basic problems facing the world today are not susceptible to a military solution."

- JFK

Where I live (Australia) suicide is legal.
Abortions are legal

If it were my body, regardless of legality I would do was I saw fit and let the lawyers look like preying vermin if they dared to prosecute me.

Most of this question comes down to who's "rights" will prevail, mother or embryo/fetus/baby.

A person would expect to have proprietory rights over their own body for this reason -
Pregnancy, for expediency of description, represents an embro developing into a fetus and into a baby to be delivered out of a womans body.
The pregnant woman occupied the body and will continue to occupy the body before, during and after the embryo/fetus/baby came and went.

For this reason, the mother has "unique proprietory rights" over what happens to her body.

In this context, comparisons relationships to other people and acts such as "murder" (as so many are emotionally roused to call it) are flawed. They are flawed because in murder and any other exchange/transaction between people, the two parties do not have the same physical relationship with each other. compared to mother and embryo/fetus/baby.

I am sovereign of my body and no one will deny me that. A denial of that rights revert our status from "citizen" to "chattel".

For these reasons, the mothers rights, I believe, morally, as well as legally, overrides and surplants the rights of the embryo/fetus/baby.

__________________
Free Speech measures the idiot by what he says
Censorship measures the idiot as equal with the Sage.

...would you really be willing to spend the rest of your life in prison on a murder charge just for the sake of standing your ground on what you believe should be your right? That may be an exaggeration of the likely sentence for an illegal abortion, I don't know, but the pro-lifers here in the U.S. are basically pushing for that.

__________________
"The basic problems facing the world today are not susceptible to a military solution."

- JFK