Fetus to have more rights than mother?

I have posted something similar to this before, but I thought I'd post again because I was questioned on the issue. Essentially, yes the fetus would have the right to infringe on the mother's rights in the same way a child or mentally retarded person would. This does not place the child above the mother, but rather takes into account that it can not take care of itself and thus has the right to not be neglected.

This right is extended to any person under the age of 18. The mother would be required to give nutrients and housing just as she is required to nourish and house her born child. The fact that in order to not neglect her child the woman must house it inside her body is inconsequential.

The right to not be neglected supersedes many rights of parents such as right to privacy and right to autonomy. There is not level of rights; they are all equal and equally protected. Thus there is no qualitative difference between giving up right to privacy and giving up right to bodily domain. I can not remove my child from my house and allow him to freeze, nor then would I be able to remove my child from my womb and allow him to die.

Until you prove that bodily domain is somehow more a right than any other right, I will not agree that a mother can remove her child and allow him to die simply for enacting its right to not be neglected.

In regards to McFall V. Shimp: The case is centered on a man whose body has failed him. He is asking that his cousin give him something that has "gone out" so to speak in his body. His cousin is under no obligation to provide him replacement parts. Similarly, a mother is under no obligation to provide a kidney for her son if his happens to fail.

However, a pregnancy is a different situation all together. The fetus' body has not given out or failed. There is no need for replacement parts. The fetus is asking only for basic housing and nutrients that only the mother can provide. Taking away the womb is not akin to not giving a kidney, but rather taking away the shelter for a one year old because he is infringing on your privacy. Obviously, this type of neglect would not be tolerated, even though the child is obviously infringing on your rights.

I know I was a bit repetitive but I was trying to bring the argument around full circle. The general idea is this. Yes the fetus would have more rights than an adult in the same way that any child has more rights than an adult because of the issue of neglect. Giving a fetus personhood would put them on the same line as a child or mentally handicapped person. If an ape can gain this designation (as is trying to happen in Spain) I do not see why an unborn child can not.