Pro-abortionists contend that the "right" to kill her unborn baby is implicit in a woman's right to control her body. But if a third party kicks her in the abdomen, killing that baby, she has been deprived of her right to give birth to that baby, ie. to control her own body. What penalty would pro-aborts prescribe for such an offense? By their reasoning, the assailant should only be charged with something like strong-armed robbery or, at most, mayhem, since a developing human being in its mother's womb is (to them) nothing but the mother's personal property or, at most, a part of her body. But all biologists identify an unborn child as belonging to the human species,
homo sapiens. And how can an unborn child, being a member of the human species, be legally defined as property? It is against the law to hold a member of the human species as chattel. But what about mayhem, ie. depriving another of the use of a body part necessary for survival or self-defense? This also fails to apply, since a baby in the womb is necessary neither to a woman's survival or self-defense -- in fact, he is often a
hindrance to both. Indeed, nowhere in the literature of biology is he defined or referred to as a "body part," but rather as a separate entity of his own, dependant for a limited time on his mother, for nourishment and protection -- specifically, a
young organism in the early stages of development,
not an "organ." You see the difficulty here? Unless the pro-aborts recognize what biology recognizes, that an unborn child is a human organism, there is no criminal charge to which his killer can be held liable.
BTW, twenty-four states now agree with my reasoning and will try such an assailant for the crime of murder, ie. the taking of an innocent human life.
My question to the pro-aborts on this thread is --
Why is the taking of an innocent human life murder when committed by a passing stranger, but is not murder when committed by that developing human being's mother?
Unless a pro-abort is prepared to argue what no biologist will or is prepared to argue for the legitimacy of human chattel, they will be hard put to come up will a reasonable reply to this question.
I think your question may have been answered in the post above, even though the author is not pro abort.