[Johnj]

Originally Posted by SoLiDUS

"Just as there are no rights of collections of individuals, so there are no
rights of parts of individuals no rights of arms or of tumors or of any piece
of tissue growing within a woman, even if it has the capacity to become in
time a human being. A potentiality is not an actuality, and a fertilized
ovum, an embryo, or a fetus is not a human being. Rights belong only to
man and men are entities, organisms that are biologically formed and
physically separate from one another. That which lives within the body of
another can claim no prerogatives against its host.

Responsible parenthood involves decades devoted to the child's proper
nurture. To sentence a woman to bear a child against her will is an
unspeakable violation of her rights: her right to liberty (to the functions of
her body), her right to the pursuit of happiness, and, sometimes, her right
to life itself, even as a serf. Such a sentence represents the sacrifice of the
actual to the potential, of a real human being to a piece of protoplasm,
which has no life in the human sense of the term."

If I were to harm a pregnat woman, and harm also came to the unborn child, I would be charged with harming both the woman and the child. Look at Scott Peterson. He is charged with two counts of murder. (as he should be) So you are saying that a woman can conspire with a number of people, including a doctor, and KILL her unborn child. But if the father did the same thing, he would be charged with murder. All the people including the doctor would be charged with at least conspericy. That sounds fair and consistent.