The frequency of "I'm pro-life because I support equal rights for the unborn and for the women who carry them" opens a box of ignorance, lack of philosophical understanding, and sheer inexperience concerning the abortion debate. It is absolutely impossible to equate the rights of women and foetuses. a bold comment. Simplistic. But true in every sense. I had previously presumed, with a certain level of misinformation, it would emerge, that this was very basic and clear concept. I feel it is necessary, especially on par with the course of discussions going on here lately, that I provide depth (although depth really isn't required, when you see the crudeness of what I'm about to say):

"Foetuses should be equal with women". Sorry fo the pedanthood, but no single person is equal to the next. Men are not equal to women (although they are both biological sexes) as carrots are not equal to potatoes (although both are vegetables) as Blacks are not equal to Whites (although both are human beings). Nevertheless, I'm not dense enough to miss out that you refer to equal rights, so I'll proceed:

By "equal rights for females and foetuses", what do you mean? That both should have the right to live, I guess. Unfortunately, rights entail much more than this utopian ideal. Giving women and foetuses does not bear equality as a result. It just shows that women and foetuses share one discrete right in common (one I will later show will end up meaning both rights are lost). One cannot debate whether abortion is permissible without including or giving unambiguous mention to the very nature of rights: foetuses supposedly deserve rights because of their individuality as human beings. What is individuality? From a biological stance, the foetus is not an individual, buta parasite, by virtue of the fact that its hostess's bodily organs is required indefinitely for it to survive and grow. Ergo, the foetus is subject to the ownership of the bodily autonomy of the hostess - the female who will become the parasite's mother should she opt to bear it. Foetuses are not responsible for their self-preservation. Very simply there is an inexorably unequal nature between female and foetus.

As I have shown, science lies in favour of the woman. Science aside, how can a foetus have the right to life and individuality and simultaneously a woman have the right to life and individuality. These parallel rights would be achieved for the foetus by disallowing abortion. How then, can they be granted to the woman? We would then end up making a horribly contradictory statement such as "It is illegal to kill foetuses by abortion but it is legal for women to have an abortion". As a result, both rights are subsequently nullified. The foetus's rights are made worthless because of the woman's rights and the woman's rights are made worthless because of the foetus's rights. Strangely, some pro-lifers condone legal abortion in cases where the female's life is threatened. This is anoher quindessential example of contradiction: "everybody is equal but some are more equal than others [when we feel the situation's right]". Why, I ask with all eagerness to know, should the female be given the unique right in such circumstances and not the foetus?

Whether it is the foetus or the female that gets the "more equal" rights in these situations it is a acknowledgement of biological inequality, which must then seriously question the credibility of asserting that foetuses and women "need" to have equal rights. If foetuses are to be recognised as individuals of distinct rights (and obviously women will also be recognised as such), this nullifies their occupation of the hostess's body when the hostess wants to enforce her own rights to bodily autonomy. This is an immediate conflict. Both rights cannot be exacted without overriding the other. The pro-lifer will favour the right of the invariably non-independent foetus to remain in the body, which it now has control and ownership of as the woman's rights have been destroyed, of somebody else. This is not a mere "little bit more equal", but rather superiority of a non-fully developed parasitic human and merciless stripping of the rights of a legally recognised and protected individual person. The foetus has now surpassed all equality originally projected by the pro-lifer and owns the fundamental biological existence of the woman. Rather than the foetus being part of her, as biology presents, the woman is now part of the foetus.

Now, based on the evidence (biological, literal, rational, theoretical etc.) that it is impossible to provide foetuses and females with equal rights, who deserves to be "more equal" than the other? The biologically independent, legally recognised sentient, thinking person or the biologically parasitic, legally-ignored growing potential person dependent on the bodily rights of the biologically independent, legally recognised, sentient, thinking person?