Does a unborn child have rights?

aborted child is a non existing entity.

non existing entities do not have any rights !!

Totally wrong advice by Amit.

People should refrain to give wrong and fault advice, that too with such an authority on legal issues.

unborn child has got rights as per indian law. Refer to Section 312 to 316 of IPC.  Also refer to provisions of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.  There is  a conflict of interest in the reproductive rights of woman and right to life of a child in the womb.  The courts balance the conflicting interests in the light of the facts brought before them.

the locus standi to file the cases to represent the rights of unborn children and aborted children is not to limited to blood relations of such unfortunates, but even public spirited citizens by filing PIL can attempt to represent their rights and in fact, the PILs are going on in Supreme Court on these issues.

a woman aborted the child

the baby is aborted.

what possible right a dead baby can have !!

moreover, that so called man is not the husband of this lady.

there is no marriage.

still, a child is never illegitimate.

how the man who is not husband of that lady can take any action ?

the woman aborted her child - thats all.

Hello Hemaji, how are you..nice to see you after long time. :)

The below two sections are relevent 

Central Government Act

Section 315 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860

315. Act done with intent to prevent child being born alive or to cause it to die after birth.-- Whoever before the birth of any child does any act with the intention of thereby preventing that child from being born alive or causing it to die after its birth, and does by such

1. Subs. by Act 8 of 1882, s. 7, for" and shall also be liable to fine".

2. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, s. 117 and Sch., for" transportation for life".

act prevent that child from being born alive, or causes it to die after its birth, shall, if such act be not caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, be punished with imprisonment of either descripttion for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 316 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860

316. Causing death of quick unborn child by act amounting to culpable homicide.-- Whoever does any act under such circumstances, that if he thereby caused death he would be guilty of culpable homicide, and does by such act cause the death of a quick unborn child, shall be punished with imprisonment of either descripttion for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Illustration A, knowing that he is likely to cause the death of a pregnant woman, does an act which, if it caused the death of the woman, would amount to culpable homicide. The woman is injured, but does not die; but the death of an unborn quick child with which she is pregnant is thereby caused. A is guilty of the offence defined in this section.

But than i would disagree with HEMA's view since as per the Medical pregenancy and termination act the girl would  say as the two are not married the boy had raped me hence i am at liberty to terminate the pregenancy. I dont understand what rights and PIL is Hema talking about .

And i really dont understand all this talk about PIL going on in supreme courts . We are a backward country when it comes to child rights . We have the National  convention of child rights 1989 and we have the child access and coustody guidelines that to approved by the high court yet  cases are dragged on for years and years . shared parenting in india  has not ven come of date . Taking into consideration the DV act section 21 of the act act custody can only be claimed by the women which  is a direct contradiction when it comes to assesing the welfare of the child .