Sorry, but part of my reply did not get copied into the form so I added it while you were writing this. My reply to Mal+ now reads:How is an infant's existence any more "contingent on the validity of it's own volitional choices" than a fetus'? Infants cannot survive as lone individuals and are completely dependent on a parent of some sort.
"A baby acquires rights on becoming a separate human individual, but the extent of those rights is limited then, becoming complete on reaching the age and/or capacity of self-sufficiency.
So too is learning and choosing primitive at first and just the start of the long-term cumulative process. Also remember that "existence" in this context refers to one's life qua man—not to mere physical existence."
"Convenient"? Really?Or if your suggesting that, because there could be a conflict between the two set of rights, it is more convenient to deny the one party political rights to avoid conflict ...
There are not two "parties" here. There is only one, and she is due her rights. Rights are not "denied" to things that do not qualify in the first place.