It should have been clear that the child being aborted and the woman only getting a misdemeanor showed the woman's rights outweighed the child's rights.Still not trying to support your own assertion.
How does a woman have more rights then the child when you are compelling that woman to give up her bodily autonomy?
Just so you can't keep on trying to make an appeal to hypocrisy. I already gave you my position on the rights of the child.
In other words. The rights of the "child" (although it's not a child really. It's a zygote, and then an embryo and then a fetus) simply are less important than that of the woman, and as such for practical, (and legal) purposes it has no rights.
Just like when that child when it actually IS a child and more importantly a legal person wouldn't have a right to my kidney.
Just to be clear, if my daughter would need my kidney to survive I would gladly give it. But it would be my choice. You are suggesting it would be a legal obligation by your logic.
That's the difference between your assertion that you believe the woman has more rights then the child without backing up the assertion. And the logical conclusion of that position.