|
To categorize the killing of a fetus as murder is to consider it a seperate human life. Once that consideration takes place, it doesn't make a difference whether or not the mother is willfully killing the fetus or not, because once that consideration takes place the fetus has its own right to life. That is where the inconsistancy lies, whether the law states it that way or not.
To differentiate between the mother CHOOSING to take the life of the fetus and someone else doing it against her wishes the fetus must qualify as PROPERTY of the mother and not a seperate life in and of itself. If it is property of the mother and not its own human life, then the killing of the fetus is no different than the killing of the mother's dog: something that is not equatable to murder.
This is, indeed, an inconsistancy, and one intentionally put into place by pro-life lawmakers. This is precisely why there was so much debate over the federal version of this law when it was up in congress (I know: I watched them debate it on C-Span).
As for lawful and unlawful killing, it is pretty clear that a killing is lawful when done in self-defense or sanctioned by the state as punishment for a crime. I am not aware of any other circumstances where the taking of human life is lawful. If an unborn child is, legally at least, not considered a human life, then there is no inconsistancy with abortion being legal. If it is considered to be a human life however, which the California and, now, federal murder laws suggest by not treating it as a destruction of property, then legal abortion would be inconsistant when the mother's life is not in danger (in which case it would fall under self-defense).
__________________
Le temps détruit tout
"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling
|