That's actually a good argument. This is my answer.When there are conflicts in rights, the government has an obligation to favor the right that does the least amount of harm.Agree, now here's the problem. Pregnancy is not a zero risk proposition, so which life takes precedence?Can you demand one person to risk her live in protection of another live?Any Government, no matter how large or small has a legitimate role to play in equally protecting the Constitutional rights of all "persons" within it's jurisdiction, from the moment their rights and lives begin.
Agree or disagree?
A 'risk' in a pregnancy is not a sure thing. The woman's life 'May' or 'May not" be at risk.
An abortion is an absolute risk. Have an abortion and a life is lost. No, if and's or buts.
Clearly, the least harm is to rule in favor of the fetus.
- The woman's life is at risk it's not a hypothetical, it is a statistical fact.
- The amount of harm is the same, namely death.
- You have a point that on the side of the baby death is certain and on the side of the woman it is small. You are however still demanding that the woman risks her life. By what right? What makes the life of the fetus more valuable then the life of the woman?