I offer an odd way of thinking about the legal issues surrounding abortion: if the fetus truly is a person, then does it have legal responsibilities to its mother?
I was struck by a recent comment made by an attorney who is opposed to granting legal personhood to chimpanzees:
"You cannot give any creature legal rights without those creatures having legal responsibility. Legal rights flow from legal responsibility.
OK, that seems reasonable enough. But what happens when we apply it to a human fetus? If the fetus is a person, then it is legally responsible for its actions, right? Which means that it must justify its seizure of resources from its mother, doesn't it? If the mother isn't willing to give up those resources, then is the fetus committing robbery against its mother -- taking something valuable by force?
Do we wait and arrest the robber upon birth? "Anything you say may be used against you in court!" "Waaaahhh!" "Write that down, officer!"
Or does the mother have a right to protect herself against this unlawful taking? How does this right differ from that of a homeowner using a gun to defend himself against a home invasion? Does the legal prohibition against using deadly force to protect property apply when the property is part of the mother's body? Or would the use of lethal force be considered self-defense?
Hoo, boy, this is just a swamp of delightful legal questions. I can see both sides getting into a tremendous cat fight over these questions. Have fun! ;-)