Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

Is it your belief that legislation which sufficiently addresses these conditions is possible?Certainly. If it can be conceptualized, it can be put into words. We may need new words that map to the concepts in question better than existing ones to pull it off, but it can cetainly be put to paper.but do you believe it should be legal for a person to get rid of either one?Of course. I don't believe that a person should be compelled to keep a pet. I would compel the person to make a good-faith effort to find a new home for the pet first, a no-kill shelter next, and finally a shelter that practices euthanasia, all without success, before I would approve of direct euthanasia though.again this is current law - not your position on whether it should be law, or whether it is moral.Your reading comprehension could use some work; I stated my moral position on the matter, that there was no right not to be eaten. Noting the current law was a qualifier, noting that I was not suggesting that it was ok for people to eat fetuses. I wouldn't generally support cannibalism outside of a starvation situation, but thats another topic entirely.does self-defense include not just where you think you will likely die, but also where you think you will be (severely?) injured?Yes, with the caveat that the force used is proportional to the threat. We have this sentiment in the 'self defense' defense when dealing with other humans. It is only valid as a defense against assault/battery/murder/etc charges when it is proportional. Shooting someone who is pointing a gun at you is ok. Shooting a person who is shaking his or her fist at you is not. The goal of self defense is to deter the threat- whether lethal force is warranted is entirely dependant on the circumstances, and there is no clean cut answer without a VERY specific situation. Even the same location and the same animal could be very different in terms of circumstances. I wouldn't press criminal charges against someone for killing an animal in self defense even if that was a disproportionate response, but I would still consider it an immoral act.Sweet - we have some answers!!Ok - so, less than lethal threat, very unlikely to endanger others and we are legally allowed to kill it. If a mother takes some steps (vitamins, exercise, etc.) that would equate to the rock throwing - how is aborting the less-than-lethal child now different?Well, for one, because the fetus is not representing an intentional threat, and cannot retreat. The stone throwing is to deter threatening behavior- and you haven't established 'less than lethal' here because the attack is deterred in this situation before such things as whether it is rabid can be determined. How many times do I have to keep repeating that a different response is warranted for intentional aggressive behavior than is warranted for inadvertent circumstances? This does not mean different rights apply, again, it means the same rights apply to different situations.Seemingly excessive saliva, absence of skittishness in a normally passive animal, etc.I will hesitatingly say that in most mammal species this would represent a strong correlation with rabies, and as such would not hold the person culpable for making that call, even if it turned out to be wrong.equal rights is not dispositive of fetus v fetus rights.But the question still isn't relevant to the question of whether fetuses have rights or not. Regardless of the level of rights they have, being equals would mean the same decision. It is off topic to explore, though in another debate it could be interesting to explore different scenarios.Do you think legal language is possible which addresses all of your concerns?Possible? Certainly.If voters and politicians don't specify, then it will be left up to the courts to interpret how the law applies rather than the doctor.I'm fine with voters/politicians/courts setting general guidelines, but not specific methodologies. Doctors should be free to utilize their own methodology, within the bounds of those general guidelines- when a case comes to legal question, it should be a simple matter to determine whether the methodology used falls within the loose guidelines. Having specific breakpoints at various percentages would necessitate specific methodologies for determining those percentages, which helps nobody.50/50 chance of live birth at any stage after viability through vaginal or c-section.Chance of dying during the abortion, let's say 1 (more than the average of 0.6) in 100,000.Complication found during the routine mid-term ultrasound done between 18 and 20 weeks - let's say 19 weeks.In this case, I would support the abortion. I will note, however, that I find it highly unlikely. In most cases, abortion represents a risk generalyl comparable to c-section, with c-section being slightly more risky. A complication like that would have to progress a LOT in 5 weeks for this example prognosis to be at all accurate.PS: Thanks for your continued time.Of course.PPS: I keep hitting Dispute rather than Clarify only because Clarify doesn't let you control which side your argument is tagged with.Fair enough- I should point out that clarify arguments don't cast an actual vote though, even if they incidentally have a 'side' line.