A woman whose pregnancy was wrongly terminated will attempt to persuade the European Court of a foetus's right to life.
Although French courts have already decided that the doctor responsible could not be prosecuted, the woman, Mrs Thi-Nho Vo, says that an unborn child has rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
An admissibility hearing will be held in Strasbourg on Wednesday to decide if a full hearing can go ahead.
Campaigners have warned that if Mrs Vo wins her case, the judgement could have implications for abortion laws across the EU including the UK.
Should the rights of the unborn child take precedence? Send us your comments.
This debate is now closed. Thank you for your e-mails. The following comments reflect the balance of views we have received:
The woman carrying an unborn child has rights. It is, it seems to me, a clear violation of her rights, and of her doctor's responsibilities as a physician, if the pregnancy was terminated against her will. That's malpractice and should be prosecuted as such. But rights for a foetus make as much sense as rights for my hangnails, from which it is conceivably possible to clone a human being. Until the child is born, it is not an independent human being with rights separate from those of the woman carrying it.
Ruth S McCreery, Japan
 |  Life begins with conception, it is the spark that begins the growth at a cellular level  |
Life begins with conception, it is the spark that begins the growth at a cellular level. Development is not complete for years after the birth of a child. Neither woman nor man have the right to kill a child at conception, at birth, or at any point after birth. Just being the mother does not give one the right to kill. There are many who will adopt an unwanted child, there is no need to kill. Ever.
Sandra, USA To those of you who are so concerned about the father's rights... the father should not have the same input into the decision because he does not have to carry the child to term (40 weeks of what can be sheer unmitigated hell)and can walk away a heck of a lot more easily than the woman. The number of "fathers" defaulting on their child support payments and abandoning their children clearly proves that.
Meg, New Zealand
Looking at many of the previous comments, it would seem that many pro-lifers feel pregnancy is a suitable "punishment" for a woman who has sex - as if a woman is only supposed to do it when she wants children. I would say these [almost always religious] people have a bigger problem with the non-puritan habits of modern females than they do with the destruction of unconscious, unfeeling, unwanted foetuses.
Lauren, USA
Technology may be able to save this issue. No woman should be forced to bear a child. No foetus has rights because it is not a viable human. Perhaps a medical procedure could remove an unwanted foetus without damaging it and put in the womb of someone who felt inclined to save it. Perhaps even men could be made to maintain a pregnancy in an artificial womb to save the foetal lives that they value so much. The Right-to- Life people could use their own bodies to save those unwanted foetuses. By choice!
Kathleen Russell, USA
No, the (already born and living) mother who should get it through child-birth and many years after, should have the right to decide if she wants to go through it or not - and definitely not the father, unless he has his baby outside of a woman's body. The baby sucks the mother's bones, not the father's.
Gita, India
Why does no one EVER mention the rights of the FATHER?
Peter Robson, UK and France
To: Peter Robson, UK and France - The rights of the father aren't mentioned mostly because it is not the father who has to go through the trauma of pregnancy, birth, breast feeding and primary care of the child (in most cases anyway). This is not to say the father isn't involved in any of these things but being a father isn't in any way a life threatening position. Bearing a child can be however.
Jess, UK
As much as we want to live, unborn children also are looking forward to live and have the right to live. If any one does not want to give birth to a baby, let the person not get pregnant in the first place, only to say I don't want the baby and want to abort. Woe to those who want to encourage people not to be responsible because they can abort the foetuses anyway!
Reginald Mpolokeng, Ghana Why do we not first address the rights of those already born (the women) before the rights of the unborn? I do not see these anti-abortionists fighting for the rights of the women in the Islamic world and India, Africa who are denied the rights to contraceptives, health care, education, inheritance etc? this is a totally warped way of thought
Sandra, USA
There just seems to be a slippery slope. There is no doubt that this woman has been greatly wronged, but there is no recourse, due to those who would enforce their political will...at any cost. Yes the unborn child should have rights.
Anno Grapoli, Canada
If people like us have the right to live, I believe an unborn child should also have those rights. No human being should be allowed to terminate the life of another unjustly. For those in favour of abortion, science has provided mankind with means of preventing unwanted pregnancy, they should avail themselves of it and stop terminating lives, a gift from God.
Nkem Osuagwu, Nigeria
Everyone's talking about 'rights' when the matter is about 'wrongs'. It is wrong to wait until you're pregnant before deciding whether you want a child. You make the decision beforehand and should stick with it.
Steve, UK
Woman have been performing home abortions for thousands of years. With the help of knitting needles and herbal concoctions. Banning abortion, does not stop abortion. It merely makes it more dangerous for desperate women. And please consider the victims of rape. They have already had intercourse forced upon them, and now you would force the child of the monster who raped them upon them.
Laura Whyte, UK
I believe that any woman who is pregnant has sole and total rights to all aspects of her own body. She should not be pressured by other people or groups as to a course of action. She should be able to choose council and accept or reject their views. No one has the right to force their views on another person especially if they are venerable.
Stan Cooper, UK
In certain cases abortion is given too easily but in no way is a foetus on par with a humans rights.
Jennifer, Scotland
If the mother wants the baby to live then what is the problem. We can always avoid having babies but when it is already there why should we kill it. Doctors are meant to save lives and that's what they ought to do ALWAYS.
Suraj Chhetri, Nepal
Every one has a right to life what is so different about an unborn child. It is not the unborn child's fault he/she did not asked to be conceived. There is no simple answer but if you don't want children practice safe sex. As for the doctor he should have known better.
Tracey, Wales
| There is not one contraceptive device on the market in the world that offers a 100% protection |
To all those who have commented here that it's the woman who chooses to have sex so she must live with the consequences of pregnancy. Have you never heard of Rape. Not every woman has the choice. You should also note that there is not one contraceptive device on the market in the world that offers a 100% protection. I have never been in the position of having to choose between pregnancy or abortion but I wholeheartedly support the right to have that choice.
Louise W, England It is all very well to say an unborn child has a right to life, but at what cost?
Jennifer, Netherlands, ex UK
So when we remove the option of abortion, we could ourselves become responsible for years of torture, starvation and abuse by a woman who has been forced to bear an unwanted child.
Jesse, UK
I'm sickened by the moralising of the religious right on this issue, most of them apparently from the US. As far as I and many others are concerned there is no God, and whilst I am happy for people to believe whatever they want I will always resist any attempt to foist your beliefs upon me. Leave the issue of abortion to the woman involved and medical experts - you would save more lives (especially those of you in America) if you didn't insist on forcing your religion and your views on the rest of the world.
Peter, UK
The right for a child to be born. What about the millions that were born recently that live in poverty around the world? And, that will die at a very early age because for their poverty? If you support "right to life" then why are you not fighting for their lives, first?
Miguel Nieto, Germany (USA expat)
I do not think we have a right to anything. But neither do we have the right to take anything from anyone else. When our culture moves from "my rights" as a base to a consideration of "your rights" then perhaps things will be clearer. If I engender a spark of life in a child then it is my job to see that it isn't snuffed out.
Pauline, UK
The vast majority of abortions are performed at the request of women who gave up their right to "choose" when they agreed to have sexual intercourse, in case some ladies have forgotten - that was designed as a way of making babies! So why the surprise when the system works?
Catherine Davies, England
| Abortion should not be as easily available as it is now |
An unborn child should have some rights, but gain more rights when born. And unfortunately the mother must sometimes come first over the unborn child. Some women use abortion as a contraceptive, not worrying too much, because it is always a last resort. To stop this happening, the number of abortions allowed to a mother should be limited, and beyond a certain number there would have to be special circumstances. It's obviously very difficult, but abortion should not be as easily available as it is now.
Jonathan Kerr, UK Why should the rights of a bundle of cells take precedence over that of a fully formed, and competent human being? Forcing women to give birth to a child they don't want is nothing short of medieval tyranny.
Damian Leach, UK
At what point do the rights of a foetus outweigh the rights of the woman to carry on with or terminate a pregnancy? It is the fundamental right of the woman to decide to have the child or not. If a woman does not agree with abortion for whatever reasons then fine, but that does not mean she has the right to force her ideology on anyone else.
D. Llewellyn, UK
I am pro choice, but all this talk of abortion being a "right" seems strange. Since the beginning of time abortion was never an option. A woman had to carry a child if she became pregnant and that was that. So have women been denied a "right" or an "option" all these tens of thousands of years? I think calling it a right is trying to make it sound cleaner. It is an option, which women are free to make and calling it a "right" doesn't make it any prettier.
James, Canada
When people die from natural causes, there is no crime. When one person dies from another's actions, it's called murder. Having an abortion is inflicting your actions upon another. Therefore, doesn't it constitute as murder?
Rob Jensen, USA
| The baby's right to life does not repress the mothers |
Yes, abortion is murder, but if a baby must use the mother's body in order to live, so she too must be taken into account. It is her decision in the end. It is never easy and she will always have to live with the choice. Morality need not be legal or illegal in this issue. The baby's right to life does not repress the mothers.
Janice, USA We still have very far to go on children's rights post-birth especially here in the US where the government refuses to sign the UN treaty on the rights of the child. For people to claim the unborn has right is farcical in light of the denial of rights to the born. If a child has rights when that supports your point of view it also has rights when it conflicts with your point of view.
Brian R. Atkins, USA
On one hand I would say yes, to protect a life means every life. But the way I truly see it is that there are too many people in the world and countries like china have put forth population control, and abortion is one way of control. But really I think that only the "would-be" parents should have any say.
Randy Duke, USA
Life begins at conception, so legal protection should also begin at conception. I and millions of other parents have mourned the loss of the baby lost through miscarriage. That was a living child who died. The 1000 gram preemie born in 1998 who is now a healthy, normal five year old boy was equally a child the day before his birth and the day after. Our legal systems need to return to recognising this basic fact.
Diane Sylvestre, USA
Perhaps Mother Theresa said it best: "It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." When you have sex - unprotected male or female - you KNOW what the potential outcome might just be. Grow up and accept responsibility for your actions!
Tony, USA
The baby (yes I believe that life exists from conception as this is a medical fact) has it's basic right to life. Society MUST respect this.
Benedict, Scotland
| Women have rights, but also responsibilities |
The rights of the unborn child are important. Women have rights, but also responsibilities. They and their partners choose whether to have sex, and whether or not to use contraception. Once a woman has a baby growing inside her, she is no longer the only person whose rights we have to consider. If she does not want a child, waiting until she is already pregnant with one is too late to make the decision.
David Sandford, UK Yes by all means. For God gave the law not to kill and that included an unborn child. So if one wanted to prove that the pregnancy they had was wrongly terminated then they should have right to appeal based on Human Rights.
Andrew Wilson, Wales
I don't know the perfect answer on the foetus-baby right to life, but anyone bringing religion into this type of debate should definitely lose it.
A Sweeting, UK
Life is life and people lose there lives every second of every day in this world. It will never change and at the end of the day life does not seem to be so precious as we make it out to be, if you look at the state of the world we live in.
Pete, Holland
If a child's life begins at conception what should we do about all those fertilised eggs that do not implant that pass to oblivion from their mother's body without anyone knowing. There are ten of those for every child that is born.
Michael, UK
I think the rights of the unborn should take precedence- if society throws away the principle of protecting the vulnerable then where do we draw the line? Already old people are threatened by the euthanasia mindset. Will it be the disabled or genetically imperfect next? One generation's selfishness is the next generation's misery.
EB, UK
I cannot see that both the unborn and the other can have equal rights. I am firmly in favour of the rights of the already living to make decisions affecting their lives.
Kim, UK
All the comments referring to the killing of an unborn child fail to understand that many, many pregnancies do not come to term, for quite natural reasons. At what stage do you mourn the loss of a ball of cells - when it fails to attach to the womb wall? When it stops developing properly and is rejected by the mother's body? Right back when the initial two cells fail to divide? Are we seriously going to treat all of these as the loss of a whole human being? Or do we stick with the current legal limit, which is not perfect, but is a very good approximation.
Sarah, Reading, UK
| My body is my own problem, or my own joy |
This comes down to belief. Do you believe that 'life' is created at conception, or when the foetus/baby is capable of independent existence? Personally, I believe the latter, and since a religious belief in creation at conception is no more or less provable or valid than mine, hands off my womb. My body is my own problem, or my own joy.
Katherine, UK Months of sickness and discomfort. Hours (or days) of unrelenting agony, organs ripped from their rightful place never to be right again. Potentially a lifetime of post-natal depression, disfigurement and debilitation. Cut the sentimentality - this is really what any woman who decides to proceed with a pregnancy is agreeing to go through. Who can be so sadistic as to force anyone to go through this?
Gina, England
When and only when ALL men have access to AND use a 99.99% secure contraceptive ALL the time unless otherwise approved by the woman they're going to have sex with, abortions should be woman's right.
Kaari Jae, Sweden
Could somebody explain why a foetus is not a human? It appears to me that a foetus is a human at a particular stage of development - a development that goes on from conception till death. Nobody says (yet) that children do not have a right to life just because they are not fully developed adults.
Phil, UK
From the moment of conception an unborn child is a human being made in the image of God, so has a right to life. If a woman does not want a child she should not become pregnant. If a woman really does not want the child she has brought into the world have them adopted. Abortion is murder however one may try to dress it up.
Diana, Great Britain
Re: Diana's "an unborn child is a human being made in the image of God" ... or God was made in the image of a human being? Religion should have no part in the issue of whether abortion is right or wrong, considering the large number of non-believers.
Jill, UK
| This was a tragic mistake and case of miscommunication |
This was a tragic mistake and case of miscommunication. It's understandable the woman wants revenge against the doctor for what happened, she may not care about the ramifications this will have on women throughout the world. People need to ask themselves: what about the human rights of the mothers, it is after all their body and as we are supposed to live a free societies, a woman should have that choice available to her, it is after all HER human right.
Niki, UK The unborn child already has rights: if it can be viable outside the mother's womb then it cannot be aborted. The law, as it stands provides for that. The religious righteous can believe what they like about this and apply it to themselves but they have no business forcing their dubious morality on non-believers.
John Cahill, UK
Many comments are saying that the woman has the right to do what she wants with her body. However, is not the body of the baby a separate entity in its own right? If it is, then I argue that it does indeed have the right not to be murdered - and this should be protected by law.
Michael, Nottingham, UK
Debating the pros and cons of abortion has no place here - it's a mal-practice case. The doctor concerned was negligent and this really has nothing to do with the abortion argument.
Marie, UK
It is disgusting how we talk and write about rights for the individual and ignore the unborn HUMAN being/child. Why is it necessary to kill an innocent person, when in the next breath we talk about IVF and designer babies? Last night I watched a woman on TV giving birth to her baby. Do you know it was fantastic. It reminded me of the time I saw my daughter Catherine born. The reason we are such a greedy and selfish society is because we don't hold up to our own moral values.
Billy Richardson, England
| Banning abortion will not prevent it |
I am frightened by the hard-liners who would like to force women to give birth to unwanted babies. Abortion is not used as a contraceptive, it is used as a last resort. The alternative is surely unwanted and unloved children, brought up by single mothers who cannot afford to properly take care of them. Giving rights to unborn foetuses merely enslaves their mothers. Banning abortion will not prevent it, it will just lead of desperate women taking desperate measures.
Rachel, England I find it quite amazing that so many people writing here seems to think it is "OK" to extinguish the life of an unborn child and call it a right. Women do have a right. Abstinence, contraceptives and even adoption. I also find it amazing that many of the countries posting here have no death penalty for criminals, but basically have one for the unborn child.
Anthony, USA
It is impossible to illuminate this debate without facts. From the National Statistical Office, for the year 2000, there were 604,000 live births and 185,375 legal abortions in England and Wales. This is an abortion to live birth ratio of 31%. It is a vile statistic and anyone who tries to pass it off as contraceptive failure is a liar.
Jeanne Nelson, England
Speaking as an ex-foetus (and there are 6 billion of us) I welcome the fact that rights will be extended to foetuses. All those in favour of abortions should be grateful that their mother didn't decide that they would be a burden on them.
Mike, Middlesbrough, England
An earlier poster says we should be grateful to our mothers for not aborting. This seems to be nonsense to me. I'm grateful to my mother for loving me, bringing me up well, and equipping me to be a sane, happy and productive member of society. If she had not been able to offer me these things, I would rather she had aborted me. Every child should be wanted and loved, and no woman should be forced to seek a backstreet abortion because she cannot - for whatever reason - offer her child the same love my mother offered me.
Elizabeth, UK
Deciding when a baby is a fully alive is always going to be an emotive issue. Ultimately those who forbid the mother (the ultimate caregiver) the right not to bring an unwanted child into the world should only do so if they are prepared to care for that child themselves. Children require huge amounts of support, financial, emotional etc. The reasons to abort the child could be because of any/all of these and only the mother is in a position to make such a personal decision. This story is tragic, but one doctor's MISTAKE (and unluckily doctors are only human) should not be allowed to have such huge legal ramifications for all of Europe.
Rebecca, UK
Most of the talk that denies the foetus right to life rights is based on exclusion of God in our life. A foetus has a soul right from fertilization. Therefore, he is a separate individual, though frail, to be protected.
Hermenegild Sseyiga, Uganda
| Pregnancy is the one area where men are simply bystanders and they find this difficult to handle, so they interfere wherever they can |
Who are we to lay claim to someone else's body? What goes on inside a woman's body is her own business. I see so many men bleating on about the rights of the child, when in fact, it has nothing to do with them, and I think it's more the lack of control they feel than anything else. Pregnancy is the one area where men are simply bystanders and they find this difficult to handle, so they interfere wherever they can and add their useless point of view. How would it be if women started to get involved in a debate over men's bodies, attempting to take away men's sovereign right over their own being? I'm sure there would be plenty said about that.
Carl, UK Unborn children have no responsibilities so they can't possibly have rights.
Ewan, UK
Of course the matter is always the same: when the foetus is a being, a creature, a child!? Perhaps after five weeks since it has been conceived? Or perhaps only one week? Who know it? Nobody! Not even science will be able to say when the foetus exactly become a person! Therefore we must think that when the male and female cells melt into each other it is already life! S/he is an unborn child who owns the right to life ! We can be deeply religious or not, but if we believe the life must be protect we must admit Mrs Thi-Nho Vo is right!
Alberto Proietti, Italy
We are going to potentially write ourselves out of any rights at all. We will make sure that the unborn, embryos, sperm and eggs have so may rights that eventually we wont even be able to 'enjoy' ourselves at the expense of 'their' lives.
Penny, UK
The love of my mother is the most precious thing I have, I would have preferred to be aborted than to have to grow up without it.
RJ, UK
I think a lot of people get very emotional and sentimental about what is effectively a parasite that will be born and become a human. During the foetal stages it is nothing more than a parasitic collection of cells feeding off the host in the same way a cancer or worms do - I don't see anyone arguing for their rights! I got pregnant at 16 by accident and having an abortion was the easiest decision I have ever made. At 16 I was still a child myself and was in no position financially or mentally to care for another child. Now 11 years on I have a degree a good job and am in a much better position to have a child that I could give a decent life.
Carolyne, England
| What gives us the sheer self-righteousness to pontificate about traumatic choices at least half of us will never face? |
I feel awkward commenting in this debate as it seems to me to be too often conducted with little sensitivity for memories and emotions that can be stirred up. But having read some of the comments here, I have to ask: what gives us the sheer self-righteousness to pontificate about traumatic choices at least half of us will never face? We should respect a woman's right to choose and accept the state has no right to take that away. Also let's admit that the real choice is not between termination or no termination, but between legal, safe procedures and life-threatening backstreet operations as were the norm pre-1967.
AN, UK I think the miracle of the unborn child's life is as holy as that of the born child's one.
Ilminlee, South Korea
Not so long ago in human history, everything revolved around the parents. Parents would have children to be able to help with labour on the farm. Children were to be "seen and not heard". Children were to know there place, and if they didn't they were punished. Now Society has done an about face. All of a sudden the child is the centre of the family. Children don't just have needs now, they have expectations.
The rights of children often are at the expense of common sense and the rights of the parents as individuals... and now we are expected to assign human rights to a fertilised egg? What next? Will the foetus get to sue if the mother smokes or drinks alcohol? If she falls, and the baby dies, do we charge her with murder? Is swimming while pregnant attempted drowning?
Richard, Sweden
A foetus has the rights to life only when the social, economic, health and other conditions of the mother are taken into consideration. A child without basic needs is worse than a child murdered.
Florence Nyariki, Kenya
We have no right to play God. Instead we need to recognise that each child, from the moment of conception is created by God. God has designed it and given life to it and as mere mortals, who are we to say what is best for it. God creates us out of love and we have a duty to care for the gifts he gives us. It is not a question of whether it feels right or not. Mankind is at fault if it can't cope with unwanted children, not God. We are all his children and must look to him for the answer to our moral problems.
Sue, UK
I think the only rights the unborn child deserves is the right to be healthy. If the mother chooses to terminate the birth it is up to her. If she so chooses the have the baby she should however take the proper care for the baby to be healthy. If we start putting in regulations on abortions people are going to attempt things themselves.
Monique, Canada
| A pregnant woman understands that her body doesn't belong exclusively to her any more |
Only a person who has never held a born child in his hands can say that an unborn child has no rights. A pregnant woman understands that her body doesn't belong exclusively to her any more, and she thinks about both herself and her baby.
Windy, UK There is no clear distinction between the born and the unborn. Both mother and child have a right to life.
Gareth Cockerill, USA
Regardless of the moral issues, the final decision should rest with the person who is most likely to have the job rearing the unwanted child - the mother. Take that right away and the women concerned will get rid of their foetuses illegally, often at great danger to themselves.
Hazel, UK
Yes! A mother has the responsibility to protect her child. Society has the responsibility to protect children as well - no matter how small.
Duane Rennells, USA
Rational and emotional reasons dominate here. Practically, no government can afford to protect every foetus that is unwanted, nor could society at large care for so many 'unwanted' children. At the same time, I find the overall practice of abortion, especially late term procedures, abhorrent. And, as stated, the father's rights to his children appears to be cut out of this discussion entirely.
Whatever the outcome, Europe is sure to see the same kind of fervour over this issue that has been a hard issue in the US for a long, long time. Good luck to you, and may your governments and courts find a middle ground that we have yet to come across.
Christopher Magee, USA
A foetus should have a right to life as much as a corporation should have free speech.
Ben, USA
| We all must live with our own choices |
Legal rights for the unborn will undoubtedly conflict with rights for the born, such as the mother, should unborn legal rights be expanded. I feel that the unborn are still attached too, and, thus part of the mother and not a separate person. Therefore what the mother decides regarding morality, as it applies to her own body should be forever her own choice. Notwithstanding, we all must live with our own choices.
Reg, USA
Every child's rights should be protected, furthered and fostered; for they are the future.
Desiree Anaya, USA
| There is no universal right to life |
There is no universal right to life. We in the western world have made it a cornerstone of our society, but the right to live suggests that dying is an injustice in its self. If you feel so strongly about the right to life, block the entrance to cemeteries as well as self righteously criticizing women who get abortions.
Arnold, Austin, USA
We don't expect children to make life changing decisions. That is the job of the parent or guardian. Why try and make this any different?
Sandra, UK
Everyone is different and every situation is different - whatever the reason it is the mother who has to live with any decision she makes, so who I am to tell her what she should do?
AJ, UK
I think an unborn baby has the right to life but when the unborn baby threatens the life of the mother the baby's life should be terminated.
Fred A Chilumba, Ghana
The doctor made a 'mistake'. He didn't mean it, it wasn't planned and certainly not vindictive. If Mrs Vo can have another pregnancy, the state/insurance could cover her for the first few months that were effectively 'lost' due to the error. That's it. The debate on the pros and cons of abortion is not relevant here.
Seema, Canada(ex-UK)
Of course the foetus has the right to life. This is an innocent human being, regardless of whether or not it has been born yet. I, as well as all humans that have ever lived, have been a foetus at one point, and I am sickened to the core with the thought that i could have been killed if my life was inconvenient for my mother. I get the sinking feeling that in the future, our "enlightened" western society will be looked back upon as baby killers in the same regard that the pre-war south is regarded as slave owners.
Mike Webster, Canada
A foetus is just a foetus, cannot count as one of us, therefore has no right of life until he/she is born, by nature or with help. This particular case can only be the wrong doing of the doctor who has terminated the foetus. Punishment for the doctor should be pursued and not to let him get away with it.
Kam Lin Wo, England
| In this day and age there is no excuse for unwanted pregnancies |
For those of you who contest that the foetus has no rights - have you any idea what happens during an abortion? Do you know how it's carried out? There is strong evidence to suggest that the baby feels pain. In this day and age there is no excuse for unwanted pregnancies - apart from rape - and if you have sex then you accept the risk. Most contraceptives used properly are nearly 100% effective. In this case, how could a doctor not realise that the lady was six months' pregnant? Why would he think she had a coil? A basic examination should have made him stop and check. I hope the lady wins her case. At least it will make us re-think our abortion laws. It may even result in the doctor being prosecuted.
Sally, England of course the unborn child should have rights! Your question itself identifies the issue with the word "child". It is a child- no adjective needed!
Robert Kelly, USA
The time of legal death is brain death, since Western law recognizes the science which says our identity and consciousness is bound up in a working human brain. Logically, legal life cannot begin before a sufficiently complex brain has developed, let alone before any neurons appear (as with the early embryo.) Just when legal life, from this view, should begin is unclear; it is quite possible that a baby is not properly conscious until some time after birth. But given that we are not a poor society, giving the infant legal protection once it is clear of its mother seems fair. Before that... I'd be willing to be a cop to stop a murderer, thief, or rapist. I wouldn't want to try to stop a woman from doing what she wants with her body.
Damien, USA
Does anyone really believe that an abortion is an easy choice for a woman to make? I would guess that it is the absolute last resort and not a decision taken lightly. I cannot imagine the constant feelings of guilt that a woman must live with after. It's easy for us guys to impose the laws all too often.
Simon Brice, France
| Personally, I am ok with both, but at least I am consistent |
I find there to be a strange dichotomy in liberal western democracies. Some people will fight tooth and nail to keep a convicted murderer from being executed, cherishing the value of life. Yet they often easily consider a foetus, (which is a life-to-be, barring accidents or intervention) as something that can be disposed of as a matter of personal choice and convenience. Others are against killing embryos a week after conception, cherishing the value of life, but are drooling at the chance to fry criminals. Personally, I am ok with both, but at least I am consistent.
Jim, Toronto, Canada
All medical care should be between the patient and doctor; in this case a grievous error was made and should subject the physician to malpractice, not murder.
N Scott, USA
Choice is important, but life is more important. The unborn child deserves legal protection.
David, UK
To have a baby is a great joy for a woman. So abortion is, in most cases, not a right of women, but something society/lack of support imposes on women.
Antonio Saraiva, Macau, China
I feel this is a bit of a grey area. If a foetus has the rights to life, then what you are saying is that the mother hasn't the right to an abortion.
James, UK
I'm glad to see that the debate here is not as tainted by religion as the debate we have in the United States. I've always thought that rational arguments exist on both side which have absolutely nothing to do with religion. Those arguments are never heard in the USA.
Cliff, USA
It's all very confusing here in the US. Get drunk, drive, and crash into a pregnant woman's car, causing her pregnancy to end? "Manslaughter" charges. Kill your pregnant wife? TWO counts of first-degree murder. Drop by a clinic and have your baby killed prior to its birth? That'll be $299.99 please.
Scott W, USA
Where is the concern for the rights of the unborn child once it is born into a household that didn't want it and can't afford it?
Helen Berg, UK
If the argument is that a foetus should have the right to life, then shouldn't we give each individual sperm and egg the right to life as well? I mean, they could potentially be a child. I am just waiting for the day when the debate of whether life begins at birth or conception will turn spark pro-life activists to try and save every sperm and egg cell ever produced by every single human being.
Denise, USA
| No one has the right to argue, terrify or force her into following a course of action she does not wish to follow |
A woman should have the right to make up her own mind about her own individual circumstances. No one has the right to argue, terrify or force her into following a course of action she does not wish to follow. Impartial advice and practical support are what women need, not the sound of people insisting she should follow someone else's agenda.
Alexa, UK
To Alexa, UK: The premise that the woman should make up her own mind just doesn't work. Does this right to privacy prevail once the child is born? When a woman dumps a baby, is that OK? Or when she suffocates it because she can't cope, is that OK? If not, why not? I thought you wanted us to respect the woman's right to choose? When is the line drawn where her right to choose is not acceptable? It's too simplistic to keep harping on about a woman's right to choose. No, she doesn't have that right. She has responsibility.
Natasha, UK
If it had been a heart transplant and the patient died as a result of their body rejecting the new heart, would we be considering banning heart transplants? It was a tragic mistake but why should the rights of women with unwanted pregnancies be denied because of the mistake of one doctor?
Chris, Ireland
| It's also the father's child |
Why does no one ever mention that the father has no rights? I know it is the woman's body, but it's also the father's child. I think the decision to have one should be made by both parents.
Liz, USA
Fascinating. The case is very interesting because it can be read two ways:
i) The foetus is counted as a human being, in which case there could be a consequential direct challenge to all abortion.
ii) The foetus is simply counted as a biological extension of the mother. In which case, when does that start and finish? If the foetus is simply a biological extension until the umbilical chord is cut, does that mean it's OK to abort at 8 and a half months?
This might just be a "tragic accident" as some have commented, but the legal ramifications are much more serious.
Peter Ould, UK
I believe in protecting the right to make choices and the right to privacy of that choice.
Michel Pratt, USA
A day before birth the 'child' has no rights whatsoever. The very next day it has all the rights of any other person. Doesn't really make sense considering the foetus is more than capable of being born many weeks early.
Andrew, UK
It seems to me that this is a matter of gross incompetence on the doctor's part, or perhaps the hospital administration. Was he not able to read the file of the patient before performing the procedure? One would think that the attention would be focussed on the issues surrounding this case, and not changing the legislation.
Christina Quenville, Canada Having read about this case, I have to admit it is a tragic accident. The fact that there were 2 Mrs Vo's in the hospital, neither spoke any French, so communication was impossible, and the doctors couldn't chat with the patient before the procedure (as happens in the UK) all mount up to an accident. This case is not about abortion, as it was never intended to abort the foetus - just a sad side effect of the procedure, and the inability of hospital staff to communicate fully with their patients.
SG, UK
Of course unborn people have rights - I find the idea that there was any point in my life that I had no rights absolutely laughable. We live in a Western democracy, where human rights are the norm, where we take for granted our own right to life - let's bring the law up to date with what is right, not with what abortionists want.
Greg, UK
My view on abortion changed when my wife was pregnant and had to go for an early scan. At just 5 weeks the baby was formed well enough to be recognisable as a human being. Prior to seeing this, I was quite easy going about abortion. After seeing it, I realised that women are killing thousands of babies every year. If you still think a 4 week old foetus if just a bundle of cells, try looking at a scan.. It changed my views.
Kev, UK
Some people here keep using the phrase "the unborn child". This is emotive and inaccurate. Until birth it is not a 'child', it is a potentiality. The reasons for abortion and the time limits applied should be judged on medical rather than emotional grounds
Keith Wright, UK
The rights of the mother should come foremost. A child is a precious thing but if it can not be looked after or is unwanted then what type of life will it have? A woman has the right to choose it is her body until the foetus can survive independently without the mother.
CP, Italy
In some cases terminations are made in the later stages of pregnancy and doctors will only perform this procedure if mother or baby is in danger. Will this right be taken away as well? As for having children & 'putting them up for adoption' as one person has suggested, how careless is that! We already have thousands of homeless and orphaned children are you suggesting we have more? People need to stop talking about abortion as if it's something that women do easily. I for one would find it very difficult to terminate a pregnancy and I wouldn't like someone judging me when they have no idea what my reasons are.
Jenna Phillips, Surrey, England A foetus should not have rights until it is at least viable - i.e. able to survive a premature delivery. People should stop getting so emotional about other people's life decisions. Terminations are carried out for all sorts of reasons - and these reasons should remain the sole decision of the pregnant female. However, I do not support abortion as an alternative form of contraception.
SH, UK
We think that a woman should have the right to decide what she wants to do with her body.
C�tia and L�lia, Portugal
This is a chicken and egg question. If I know that the unborn child in the stomach has some of defects which could hinder his development in his life, I would not want to bring this unborn child to this world, especially if I know I will die one day and no longer be there to protect the child. It is not an easy question to pinpoint whether there rights for the unborn child. What we could do is to study each individual case and review independently rather than one answer for all the cases.
Christina Spybey, United Kingdom
An unborn child has rights in addition to those of the mother when the foetus becomes a fully formed child and not just a part of a woman's body.
Nadir, Pakistan
| If the child has all the conditions to be born, i think she should be considered as a unborn person with future rights to acquire |
In my opinion the unborn children may have rights although they haven't been born yet and can't claim them. A foetus is considered by most as a future form of life, but we must consider if the child has the perfect conditions to be brought to life: full health, if she is desired by his parents and family and if the family has the necessary conditions to raise the child properly. In this case, if the child has all the conditions to be born, i think she should be considered as a unborn person with future rights to acquire.
Eloi, Portugal The rights of the mother should overrule those of the foetus; otherwise we could have the situation where a mother could die if she were unable to abort the baby.
Caron, England
Human cell division = human life. Therefore the unborn deserve some kind of protection. You can't condone killing people just because their existence is inconvenient.
Phil, UK
I think that all human been have right to live.
H�lia In�s, Portugal
If an unborn child has rights, then one resulting from a rape must have the same rights as any other. A change in the law would force victims to bear the child of their attacker. Do the anti-abortion people think that is right?
Mark, England
Abortion should be illegal unless the circumstances are absolutely exceptional - such as the pregnancy putting the mother's life at risk.
Ellina Rosen, UK
The last thing the EU needs is the rampant right wing Christian fundamentalists killing doctors and injuring family planning workers as they do in the US - all in the name of religion. The case should be thrown out on its ear. And Britain should look to the vital importance of its own legislative independence on this issue.
Phil Allsopp, Dallas, USA
Until the child is born the mother's rights are paramount.
Mark, UK
| It is incredulous to suggest that the time of birth is what makes a baby a human |
There is so much overwhelming evidence of the capacity of an unborn child to respond of its own accord both physically and emotionally to a range of stimuli that it is incredulous to suggest that the time of birth is what makes a baby a human.
SM, Australia If the unborn child has rights, what does this mean for the rights of the mother? Is she just a receptacle?
Eileen, UK
Probably the main question in all procedure is about the beginning of human being. If we made decision when the human life starts, we'll be able to give fully ethical respond for that confusion.
Agnieszka Rudkowska, Poland
If you read the article, what happened to this woman was a terrible accident, the doctor didn't purposely try to terminate a 6 month pregnancy, he attempted a procedure that ended up in the pregnancy being lost. All pregnancies are precious, but it is very easy to say abortion should be illegal. All cases should be carefully looked at.
Tracey, UK
If an unborn child has rights should a mother be able to sue her unborn child for injuries caused by the child during the pregnancy or birth?
Chris Steele, UK
No. The possibility that her particular child was aborted in error should be contestable as things stand. Using this as an excuse to promote an anti-abortionist agenda is irresponsible. That would undermine decades of carefully built and considered legislation, which have evolved in line with society's preferences and thoughts. A single case should not be allowed to change that as a side effect.
JS, UK
Unborn children should have a right to life. I find it revolting that the youngest and most helpless in society can be terminated, sometimes for no reason other than they are inconvenient, especially when there have been premature babies who have lived despite being born at an age when they could be legally aborted. Many people support abortion on the grounds of a woman's right to choose - well, there are some things you should not be allowed to choose to do. You can't kill your baby after birth, so why should you before? If you don't want it, give it up for adoption!
Stephanie Clarke, Cambridge, UK
While in a perfect world there would be no unwanted pregnancies the simple fact is that there is and it should be entirely up to the individual as to what course of action they take. No government or institution should have the right to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their own body, other than in an advisory role.
David Mc, Scotland
| To seek revenge on a doctor when to do so will limit the rights of millions of women is fundamentally wrong |
There are dozens of medical circumstances where appalling decisions have to be made, for example where the mother is unlikely to survive birth, or where a woman has been raped to name just two. The rights of the mother also must have a place and cannot be ignored. It will always be a balancing act and my heart goes out to Mrs Vo but to seek revenge on a doctor when to do so will limit the rights of millions of women is fundamentally wrong. There must always be flexibility to allow doctors to deal with situations that most of us thankfully never have to face.
Kathy, UK I do not advocate abortion as a form of contraception, however I do firmly believe that it is every women's right to be able to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Rebecca, UK
I don't see the connection here between the right to choose an abortion, and the malpractice and incompetence of a doctor. The argument is between the parent's right to choose - which does take precedent over the foetus - compared with a doctors mistake - which does not. However, I would not like to be the Judge in charge of this case.
Colin Heyes, UK citizen in Germany
Why should we accept that an unborn baby is a child when a woman has a miscarriage and, rightly, grieve with the parents, but not recognise it is a human being when we want to abort it?
Catherine Davies, England
I believe that Mrs Vo has the right to sue due to a mistake being made in the operation. However, I would say that logically she only has the right to sue in her personal capacity, and not on behalf of the non-sentient foetus.
Jason Miles, UK
| An unfortunate medical accident cannot be the reason to change the law |
An unfortunate medical accident cannot be the reason to change the law. If Mrs Vo wins her case, she might have got some comfort, but this decision could ruing the life of many women. It will drive abortion underground and unsafe medical practice will cause more danger to human lives.
Laszlo Nemes, Australia The tradition that life is holy and cannot be manipulated at will has been the basis of human rights. Unborn children fall within this definition and should be protected by law.
John Samut, Malta
We should never have signed up to this human rights legislation that means our laws to be decided by unelected judges rather than our own elected national parliaments. Abortion is too important to be decided on some legal technicality.
Will, UK
A woman should have the total rights over her own body and will attempt to get an abortion whether it is legal or not. We do not want to go back to the pre-1967 era when back-street abortions killed so many women.
Diane, UK
Yes, the woman has the right to choose to have sex or not. Yes, the woman has the right to choose whether to use contraception or not. No, the woman does not have the right to kill her unborn child. Her choice about her body was made when she chose to have sex. A baby does not have the choice as to whether it is conceived or not, and therefore should be protected. If a baby is killed outside the womb, it carries a prison sentence, but killed inside the womb, our current laws seem to find this ok!!!
Claire, England
Clair, England obviously does not know that condoms are only 95 % efficient and that the pill is only 98 % efficient (not mentioning the side effects that women feel when taking it). The other thing she tends to confuse is the difference between foetus and baby. Abortion is practised within the first four months of pregnancy, when the foetus is still developing but just remains growing cells.
David, UK
A foetus is an unborn child, so it should not be seen as a human yet. Although it might be a creature growing inside of the woman's stomach, one should not consider a foetus alive. From the moment that the child is born, it has human rights and should be treated like that. So if a woman who's gotten pregnant wants to have her baby aborted, people shouldn't think of the baby's rights, but one just has to decide if the reason to have the baby aborted is important enough.
Katrien, Belgium
| The rights of the unborn child must be paramount |
Abortion is termination of life, pure and simple. Without question, the rights of the unborn child must be paramount. Laws must be enacted to protect the right to life world wide. The right to life should not be debatable. It's God given right, which makes natural law.
Jaward Sesay, USA Any 'creature' whether born or unborn have automatic and absolute rights!
MULLAH Hafeezud Din, UK / BIRMINGHAM
Just because of the implications and fall out that could come from this case I say no, there should be no rights for the unborn child. While never ideal, abortion should be available to women and this ruling could jeopardise that.
Claire Herbert, London, UK
Yes, an unborn child's life takes precedence. In fact, doctors ARE responsible, for wrong and unwanted termination. It is not only medical malpractice, but it is taking away both the mother's right to give birth to her baby, and the baby's right to live.
Christina F., New Zealand
Under the current law it's not the foetus's rights that are affected but the mother's. And in this case it's not really an 'abuse of rights' but an accident, for which she should be awarded compensation.
Wendy, UK
Calling it an "unborn child" is begging the question. A foetus isn't an unborn child, just like a sperm and a twinkle in the eye aren't.
Mark RISON, Europe
Yes, an unborn child should have rights. Since the most important resource to any population should be the people, then that important resource should be protected the most.
Ed Brady, USA
Ed Brady: Surely the most important resource for a population is food and clean water, not MORE people? As the world is overpopulated, what is the problem with terminating pregnancies? Surely it is doing everyone a favour (most of all the child). I'm sick of this child-worship culture that has become madness in the developed world. People cry for aborted foetuses but cheer at the prospect of bloody wars...
Geoff Kales, UK
One-Minute World News 
News services
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 
