Only if you are blinkeringly stupid is that a fine line.
The person posing the question is obviously AGAINST such an absurd legality as treating a miscarriage as a wrongful death, not advocating the position.
I have posed the question, to try and get people to look at the unintended consequences of simply saying we are going to extend all the rights and protections afforded any other child to in-vitro fetusus, from the moment of conception.
If you're declaring the use of any drug that causes the death of a fetus to be murder, and a woman obtains these drugs illegally and uses them, then she has committed murder. If a doctor has any reason to believe a child was harmed or killed by the actions of the parent he is legally obligated to report it to the authorities for investigation. Does that apply if he suspects the woman may have illegally used abortificant drugs?
The only reason to oppose the life begins at conception position is to justify abortion.
It was believed that life began at conception for ages, until the pro-abortionists wanted to make abortion less offensive. And all during that time, no one ever considered women who had miscarriages as potential murderers.
It’s a fine line in that it is too easy to cross if someone is looking to get someone with something.
Life begins at conception.
The fertilized egg is growing, it contains human DNA. It’s a living, growing human being. But arguing against that definition is a liberal, pro-abortion position.
Period.