I'm curious - if an unborn human being is NOT a human being, as defined by this appellate court decision, then what is it? Why is it a felony to kill a human being still in the womb if it is not a "human being"? What would you (Emily) like doctors to call a person who is not yet born? And, lastly, what do doctors generally call that person who is not yet born? (To answer my own question, when I was pregnant, my doctor referred to my not yet born baby as "your baby", which seems to be an appellation only suitable for a "human being". Does that mean my baby was not yet really a human being because he was not yet outside my womb? I don't think so.)

It's a fetus.

In nearly every state (I'm pretty sure every state...but not positive) its not a crime unless the fetus was viable or had actually taken a breath...both points at which abortion is illegal.

Ah, Emily, but there is where it gets interesting: as medical technology continues to improve, the time frame for "viability" will continue to expand. What if it should reach 4 months in utero?

For that matter, how is the life (if you want to call it that-I'm rather neutral on abortion) of the fetus/child/cell collection/human being any less a life from one week or month to the next?

I'd say that the problem we face in terms of legality is that these are largely philosophical questions. Our system of laws doesn't deal well with ambiguity and philosophy, which is the reason, in my humble opinion, that the law should stay out of such affairs, whether in support or via prohibition.

Apologies if this response is too flip, but if the fetus is viable at 4 months, then why not just induce birth at that point? Then, there's no more pregnancy for the woman involved, and the baby will still be alive.

either im completely missing your sarcasm, or youre an idiot..first of all, avoiding a live birth is the entire point of having an abortion. if the woman seeking the abortion was a-ok with giving birth to a live baby and then adopting it out, she wouldnt be seeking an abortion in the first place. A fetus is considered medically viable at 20 weeks, meaning that its possible for it to live outside the womb, not likely, but possible. and babies/fetuses that are born so extremely preterm are incredibly expensive to care for, require intensive care for many months and often have defects that will affect them for the rest of their lives. soooo yeah..not such a good idea.

unsanitarypaws:

either im completely missing your sarcasm, or youre an idiot..first of all, avoiding a live birth is the entire point of having an abortion. if the woman seeking the abortion was a-ok with giving birth to a live baby and then adopting it out, she wouldnt be seeking an abortion in the first place. A fetus is considered medically viable at 20 weeks, meaning that its possible for it to live outside the womb, not likely, but possible. and babies/fetuses that are born so extremely preterm are incredibly expensive to care for, require intensive care for many months and often have defects that will affect them for the rest of their lives. soooo yeah..not such a good idea.

yes i believe you missed the sarcasim.
and your arguement is exhausting.
the point we "pro-choicers" etc. are trying to make is if it isn't able to make it pre-9 months without lots of special care then its not a fully devloped Human and is just a fetus.

and by the way whether is can not make it post 9 months with out lots of special care is not the point either since we ALL can agree that we know that's how long it should take for a fetus to become a baby so don't even try to argue that aspect...