Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

I believe that it is implied that I favor legislation that matches my stance on the issue.I think there are generally other factors in supporting legislation than just whether I would do something myself. I may not smoke, but may not favor legislation banning smoking outright, etc. Factors such as cost of executing the law, whether a law can be written in a sufficient way to deal with all the relevant factors clearly enough to sufficiently mitigate litigiousness, unintended consequences (e.g. laws requiring hospital admitting privileges may be justifiable on their face, but can end up closing clinics and increasing overall mortality), and the laws effectiveness (abortion laws may not actually reduce the number of abortions, but instead make them less safe), etc.the relative rights of various animalsif different animals have different rights, then assigning the fetus "animal rights" becomes a bit less meaningful - is there a specific animal we should be using that provides the closest approximation?I contest the fact that brain function, specifically, is the reason we assign ourselves more rights.I gave it as one example of a difference used to justify rights, not as the only reason used. In your might-makes-right example, favoring the cat could still be justified.right 'not be eaten'If animals don't have a right not to be eaten, do fetuses?unprovoked attackdoes inadvertently stumbling into one in the desert/woods = provocation?this would rarely be applicableRarity is here again being used to avoid the issue. It is either moral in your view or it isn't. Rarity might impact the way legislation is written but even then outliers should at least be considered.If someone in the forest stumbles upon a fox that appears to be acting weird and is progressing towards them, could they morally kill it?Should there be a law against killing it?If someone is bitten by an animal outside of town and they think it has rabies (and is able to capture it), can they morally/legally have it tested since it would kill the animal for a less than lethal act?I took those as hypotheticals to illustrate the complexities rather than direct questionsAnd they were offered as such, I was just curious as to what your response would be.animal to animalRight, I figure this might be more akin to the cat/goldfish thing. E.g. one pet poses a threat to the other, etc.specifically regarding animal rights vs human rightsIt is regarding the rights of the fetus, I assume that is whether it is vis-a-vis the mother or another fetus.The mothers life trumps the life of the fetus, but non-fatal injury to the mother does not.I was aiming more for the case where both have severe issues - e.g. severe deformation of the fetus combined with near certain likelihood of permanent organ damage for the mother if she continues the pregnancy.I should state that I HATE using actual percentages hereI agree that this is a major factor in constructing relevant legislation, but I would caution that words like "actual threats", "severe", "life-threatening", etc are also vague. Shouldn't the law include "the methodology used to generate those chances" as well?I am concerned with actual complications that threaten the mothers life.If an actual pregnant woman is told by her doctor (after 12 weeks) that she has a complication with her pregnancy and has only a 50/50 chance of surviving if she were to attempt to have the child - should that qualify legally as life-threatening?