Quote:Did I miss your response to this question (Which was asked a couple of times previously):


"If a pregnant women is assaulted to the point that it kills her unborn child, why would the killer be charged with the murder of said unborn child? " Why is killing the unborn child acceptable in one case but not the other? Either it is a life or it isn't.

It does seem that there would be a double standard! I haven't done much research in this particular law, but the law seems poorly thought out, if that's the verbiage of it.


This is, I'm assuming, a law within certain states, correct? The states in which this law exists, were they passed by a republican majority? I'd be curious to know that fact.


But... even with that said, I could see this issue in the same manner I see tort cases where compensation is given to the plaintiff based on future earnings that would be lost because of the negligence of the defendant.


In essence, it gets back to the concept of the pregnancy and where you determine the point in which life begins, I think.


If you think that life begins at conception, the law makes sense that it would be murder. If you believe differently than that, then the harm to the unborn child, as you put it, is harm to that potential life that did not get to develop--similar to tort law... In either case, a harm was done.


Unfortunately, it comes down to the "have" v "having" semantics me and my good friend flspts are discussing, to a certain extent.

---