We all know that a fetus is inhabiting the womb without ongoing consent(due to lack of rationality and unable to consent) therefore unjustly taking bodily use from the mother. Although the mother may have caused the fetus(depending on one’s belief), the mother compensating her mistake using her own bodily autonomy is a wrongdoing. Treating oneself’s own inherent right as a mere property is no different from slavery itself(because human beings become a mere property in slavery also). In fact, a big consensual issue(like pregnancy) requires an even more enthusiastic agreement, not some tacit action(referring to intercourse) that has multiple purposes. As you can notice, we don’t see a clear consent from the mother nor a request from the fetus(no rationality), therefore we can’t quite say the mother consented to the fetus by having intercourse(too vague/ambiguous). Also, if you took away someone’s kidney(s) without consent, are you morally obligated to donate your kidney in expense for your bodily autonomy? I think not due to the vast similarity with slavery(mentioned above).

I do indeed agree that all fetus have human rights, but you have to falsify that a fetus lacks proper consent from the mother, and the part that the woman’s inherent right must not be treated as a mere property used for fixing mistakes in expense of it. They could have been pressures into doing it, but it’s still their conscious decision in the end. Not to mention the other 40% who genuinely does not consent to the fetus(even though there will never will be a proper consent between the fetus and the mother). We all agree that using oneself or one another as a mere property is wrong, why would it be any different for pregnancy which gives up the woman’s right and uses it for a solution for the fetus(which is to let it exist). Picture a scenario where you need to compensate your right as a free individual for being a compensation for your wrongdoing. A mother had intercourse and mistakenly got a child, then the mother gives up her own freedom as a consequence of causing the fetus. How is that any different from slavery?

I think you missed my analogy, because I described the donor causing the kidney situation yet we’d still call it immoral to do such transplant(even if the donor caused it). It is also quite clear when a fetus is viable outside the womb(meaning bodily independent). I get that killing a human being might feel wrong in all sense, but for our morals to be consistent, it is either the fetus or the mother(which the fetus is inside the womb unjustly). We can’t claim that all right are equal just for us to support women unjustly carrying the fetus due to valuing the fetus rights more than the mothers(when it should be the same).