>>123366
>intellectual property law
Firstly, there is no such thing as "intellectual property law": https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html ;
secondly, I'm not sure what "intellectual property" has anything to do with genes; were you ineptly making an analogy between the "owner" of an "IP" and genetic inheritance? It's a stupid analogy anyway, for the gene is a scarce resource stemming from the parent and no one else; it's not an idea.
>mother's right to abort the child is based on the fact that she has the power to do so
No, it isn't; if that were the rationale behind it, then it would be lawful to commit murder as it also premised upon the very broad criterion of "having the power to do so".
>The unborn doesn't have the means to obtain third party protections
That's not withstanding. I'm not pleading for the fetus' right to live, but the father's right to have equal share in deciding the fetus' fate; I'm not arguing against abortion, but the retarded view that whores should have sole prerogative on the matter.
Supposing the fetus to be merely a clump of cells, and not a separate entity, it must be cells of something, and that something is the organism, namely the mother, so the fetus is continuous with the mother as the cells are part of the organism; yet, if the mother acquired such cells after and not before, then the cells, despite being continuous with her, are an outgrowth of the mother, and an outgrowth is a kind of product, which entails a production that preceded it; if she acquired such cells after pregnancy, and pregnancy requires the involvement of a mate and cannot be accomplished of the mother's own accord, then the father contributed to the production of the cells and the cells are the product of both the father and mother's contribution, ergo the father and mother jointly hold the purview of the fetus, and should jointly decide whether to abort the fetus or not.