Until she acts out a legally sanctioned choice, the fetal cells in her body are equivalent to me. To you.

Here is how the car crash resulted in the murder of two instead of one:

Mother being killed = murder.

Mother is carrying life. Until the very moment ACTS OUT her choice via appropriate channels, _by default_, the mother’s IMPLIED INTENT is to carry the baby to term and produce life.

Until the moment she _acts out_ her choice via appropriate channels, the cells inside of her are legally considered a life, and the death includes all the FUTURE POTENTIALS removed as if the fetus had gone to term and been born, became a child, kid, teen, adult, middle aged person, old person, elderly – hooked up to a machine without a DNR order on the head of his/her bed.

Until she acts out a legally sanctioned choice, the fetal cells in her body are equivalent to me.
To you.

Simple as that.

But why? You’re thinking forward in time. Murder is a crime because of the future potentials that are being eliminated.

The mother has a right to remove the future potential and it is not considered murder. That is our law.

But nobody else has the the right, because the future potential extends from the rights of the mother, confers to what she is carrying inside of her, which gives it equivalent right-to-life as Jonathan Norton, Kenneth Udut, or anybody here.

No need for a special term. That would just be prejudice. Logically, it’s murder.

other says ‘fetus becomes ┬áperson at birth’ – my response – That is a religious position you are espousing. The legal position confers infanthood <– personhood by virtue of the mother.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


two × = 18

Leave a Reply