Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie
See that exception thing I wrote?
Some states allow a second murder charge if the fetus is viable outside of the womb. Doubt any state would bring double murder charges if the woman was only a few weeks preggers
|
Since I loathe to post out of ignorance I went an looked around to see if I could find the "youngest" fetus protected by the
Unborn Victims of Vilolence Act, and most I found were in the 3rd trimester, outside of most legal abortions. However, the law does call a "baby in utero," "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." The vagueness of the language made a lot of pro-choice people oppose the bill. 2004 Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry said he had "serious concerns about this legislation because the law cannot simultaneously provide that a fetus is a human being and protect the right of the mother to choose to terminate her pregnancy."
Abortion will always be a hot button because on one side, religiously minded or not, people will call for the right of the unborn to live, and on the other people will say that the mother's rights over her body trump those of the child. All sides have slippery slopes. There was a recent case of a couple who sued for "wrongful life" because their daughter was born with Down Syndrome and had they known, they would have terminated the pregnancy. What's to keep people from eventually choosing to abort children based on any sort of perceived issue before birth? Does the choice to end a pregnancy become ever become wrong because the choice was made because the child won't be perfect, or is just plain inconvenient?