So seconds before a natural birth it's still a "thing" and has NO rights ?
Go ahead, then. Explain to me how the fetus can have rights without denying the mother rights.
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.
If it has no rights how can someone be charged with its murder in cases of domestic violence that wind up in the death of the wanted "baby??
Because the law is schizophrenic and hypocritical and written by people with no regard for consistent moral principles. It's written by people with agendas, to push those agendas.
Hypothetical: A woman uses narcotics, legally or illegally obtained, while pregnant. The child is born with a dependency on said narcotics as well as kidney problems.
Since, in your opinion, the child is now born and has rights, who is responsible for the child abuse?
Your first error is assuming that I believe the child has rights once it is born. It has rights when it is
named, when it becomes a member of someone's family.
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.
You would think that, but you've established on multiple occasions that you don't understand how enslaving women to the interests of fetuses could possibly violate their rights.
It is not impossible for a human parent and a human offspring to have rights.
It is when one of them is growing entirely
within the other and is solely dependent on the other's metabolism to provide nutrients.
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.
It is not impossible for the state to protect the rights of the offspring against aggression.
Neither ingesting whatever chemicals one chooses nor removing unwanted organisms from one's own person is aggression. Locking women up for doing these things is.