Moderator's Warning: Talking about other posters is likely to get you points and a thread ban. It would be wise to stick to OP from here on out.
If it has the right not to be exposed to chemicals that are dangerous to it, the mother loses her right to expose herself to those chemicals-- whether they are dangerous to her or not. That's central to this case, and people are generally supporting the principle behind the law-- if not the execution-- because in this case the "dangerous chemicals" are illegal drugs. But not all teratogenics are illegal drugs, and not all of them are harmful to the mother; if the fetus has the right not to be deformed in the womb, the mother loses the right to use helpful and sometimes even necessary prescription drugs. She loses the right to work in jobs that might expose her to those chemicals. If the fetus has the right not to be exposed to unnecessary risks, the mother loses the right to expose herself to unnecessary risks.
Until you can explain to me how a fetus can have rights without denying rights-- basic human rights-- to the mother, the answer is an absolute, unqualified "yes": until the moment the umbilical cord is cut, the fetus is a "thing" with no rights whatsoever.
Your second is assuming that anyone needs to be responsible for the "child abuse" in the first place. Not every terrible thing that happens is a crime and not everyone responsible for it is a criminal.
Children who are born addicted to narcotics and with serious organ damage should be euthanized.
The only way for an unborn person to have rights is to force another person-- one specific person-- to provide for those rights at their own expense.
There's a word for people who believe that you can have a right to someone else's body.
I wrote a thread on this in the abortion section...
What disturbs me is the mother had no lawyer but the fetus did. The mother was not given due process and spent 78 days in a drug treament facility. The obstetrician was definitely wrong for this.
“Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world.”