Brainstorm

[Mister Agenda]

Ok, I agree with that. But we're still talking about it's potential to become something more here, if you wish.
(Emphasis mine.)
That may very well be true, but then humans that can experience pain take precedence over human fetuses that can't. Would you agree with that or not and why?

I don't think so. I think it depends on which "rights" are taken away. If a woman allows the fetus to live, her right to not be pregnant for 9 months will be violated. But if she does not allow the fetus to live, its right to life will be violated. The right to life trumps the right to not be pregnant for 9 months, imho. Adoption should always be an option for her and I think we need better programs to help women through this difficult process.

In America (and most other places), the parents of the baby can't be required to even give blood to save the infant's life, let alone an organ. We can't even take organs from corpses to save someone's life if they didn't consent before they died. The reason this is the case is that it is too much of a violation of a person's autonomy for the State to step in and override their consent on such matters.

Why should a woman have less autonomy than a corpse?