Not all rights are equal.
Mother/child issue aside, the right to live generally supercedes any other right.
But the child cannot survive without the mother's womb.
Understand now?
Because if you are going to argue that the foetus' right to live supercedes any other right, then you are basically making the mother's rights null and void. Her rights cannot exist or continue, so long as she is pregnant, if the foetus' right to live supercedes "any other right".
That is not true. It is not a back-white issue.
It is very much true.
You are arguing that the "unborn" has rights to live. Those rights cannot be exercised while it resides inside the mother's womb. If those rights to live exist for the unborn, then the mother's rights over her own body become non-existent.
You cannot have competing rights when one resides inside the body of another.
It is simply impossible.
If you confer rights to the "unborn", then you do so at the expense of the mother's rights to her body and her rights to her life. In cases where there is a medical condition that requires termination of the pregnancy to treat the mother, by giving the foetus a right to live that supercedes any other right, then you are pretty much arguing from the standpoint that the mother's right to seek treatment does not exist if it endangers or will result in the termination of the foetus. You argued that the right to live supercedes any other right, remember? If you confer those rights to the foetus, than its rights directly compete with the mother's rights to live. So who do you think should win? The "unborn"? Or the mother? See how those rights cannot and should not compete?
If you grant rights to live to the "unborn", then you are treating the mother like a host, because her rights over her own body no longer exist and in whatever circumstance that may arise, the rights to life of her unborn will come first over her rights over her own body. You can't have both. Either the mother's rights exist, or they are in direct competition with her foetus, in which case, if its rights to live supercede any other right, then she has absolutely no recourse, regardless of the circumstances involved. It's why Munoz was kept on life support and her decaying corpse forced to endure ridiculous measures to keep her heart beating, because the oxygen starved child she carried, had a right to live.. The child was never viable, but because it had a heartbeat, the hospital determined that its right to live superceded even human decency and her spouse and family were forced to watch her body visibly decay, as she was kept alive so that her blood could keep flowing to the placenta. It is also why women who suffer ectopic pregnancies are often denied treatment in Catholic managed hospitals, or women who miscarry are denied treatment, because the child's right to life supercede any other right, including the mother's right to access to medical care.
It is why the UN Human Rights Commission declared abortion a human right. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights do not confer human rights to the unborn. Because to do so, would be at the expense of its mother's human rights.
I'll give you a real life example. A young woman is critically ill, and she doesn't have long to go. She is 25 weeks pregnant. If she delivers the baby, she will die. She asked to hold off delivering, to allow her some more time. Doctors also advised that the baby would not survive delivery, and forcing her to endure a c-section, would kill her. The hospital took her to court, where a judge ordered she have a c-section, because the baby's right to life supercedes any other right, including the young woman's right to life. She died and so did her baby.
I'll leave the discussion of motive to others. That should not cloud the issue of what is the right thing to do in principle.
In principle, it should be a private and personal decision, one made with advice from one's doctor.
Yes. I'm not bringing that as an extant argument.
But the pro-lifer's argument is clearly that fetus' do have the basic human right to live. i.e. in practical terms the Declaration should apply.
Pro-lifer's argue that from the point of conception, the right to life exists and that it is a person. Which is why in some states,
miscarriage can now be a criminal offense ....
In practical terms, the Declaration of Human Rights apply to those who are born. It does not apply to the potential of a human life. Because that is what a pregnancy is. A potential to become a person/life.