Publius

Wow so much here I want to respond too. First, SecretMethod70 for providing exactly what I was looking for in a response so allow my to quote you in part here a couple of places (from your 2 different responses).

SecretMethod70 “... 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 ...”

Exactly, or so we are told. But in actuality this is not entirely true. Let me quote the relevant California Code here to provide background.

195. Homicide is excusable in the following cases: (Note: it reads excusable not lawful)
1. When committed by accident and misfortune, or in doing any
other lawful act by lawful means, with usual and ordinary caution,
and without any unlawful intent.
2. When committed by accident and misfortune, in the heat of
passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden
combat, when no undue advantage is taken, nor any dangerous weapon
used, and when the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.

196. Homicide is justifiable when committed by public officers and those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, either– (Note: it reads justifiable not lawful)
1. In obedience to any judgment of a competent Court; or,
2. When necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to
the execution of some legal process, or in the discharge of any other
legal duty; or,
3. When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have been
rescued or have escaped, or when necessarily committed in arresting
persons charged with felony, and who are fleeing from justice or
resisting such arrest.

197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:
(Note: it reads justifiable not lawful)
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.

198. A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned
in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide
may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the
circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable
person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence of
such fears alone.

199. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the
person indicted must, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and
discharged.

Now that is a lot of legal mumble jumble there, but it does supplies us (at least within California Law) with a legal definition of lawful killing. Self-defense here, as in most states, does not constitute a lawful killing but an “affirmative defense”. What does this mean exactly? It will be up to the prosecution to decide whether or not to charge one with the commission of a crime in the death of another when it appears that one was acting in self defense of oneself, one’s property, or the life of another (but only when the other is unable or unwilling to act in his own defense). If the prosecution does charge one with the commission of a crime, then, one can raise the self defense claim as an “affirmative defense” to that charge. In raising an “affirmative defense” one basically is saying “yes I did what I am being charged with doing, but I was justified in doing so, therefore, I should not be found guilty”. It will then be up to the jury to decide if the killing was justified or not. If the jury returns a verdict in your favor, then the killing was lawful, but if the jury find against you then shit up a creek in a leaky canoe without a paddle.

SecretMethod70. “Since abortion is legal, it is clear that future POTENTIAL is not a valid factor in determining the status of something. In other words, it doesn't matter that what is carried in the mother's womb has the POTENTIAL to be a human, from the perspective of abortion it is not PRESENTLY a human and therefore is property of the mother and not its own life. This is necessary for abortion to be legal, otherwise the thing inside the mother would have rights of its own - including the right to life ...”

Good point here and I would definitely agree that the law does not take into account the POTENTIAL status of the fetus only its relevant status at that particular point in time (I’m not sure I can agree with you about argument that the fetus is the mother’s property however, but that is a topic for another time). The California Penal Code in Section 187 (b) (1) makes a specific exception to the charge of murder when: “The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2(commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division
106 of the Health and Safety Code.” So, it is important to read all of the law to see the entire intent of the legislature here.

123460. This article shall be known and may be cited as the
Reproductive Privacy Act.

123462. The Legislature finds and declares that every individual
possesses a fundamental right of privacy with respect to personal
reproductive decisions. Accordingly, it is the public policy of the
State of California that:
(a) Every individual has the fundamental right to choose or refuse
birth control.
(b) Every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a
child or to choose and to obtain an abortion, except as specifically
limited by this article.
(c) The state shall not deny or interfere with a woman's
fundamental right to choose to bear a child or to choose to obtain an
abortion, except as specifically permitted by this article.

123464. The following definitions shall apply for purposes of this
chapter:
(a) "Abortion" means any medical treatment intended to induce the
termination of a pregnancy except for the purpose of producing a live
birth.
(b) "Pregnancy" means the human reproductive process, beginning
with the implantation of an embryo.
(c) "State" means the State of California, and every county, city,
town and municipal corporation, and quasi-municipal corporation in
the state.
(d) "Viability" means the point in a pregnancy when, in the good
faith medical judgment of a physician, on the particular facts of the
case before that physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the
fetus' sustained survival outside the uterus without the application
of extraordinary medical measures.

123466. The state may not deny or interfere with a woman's right to
choose or obtain an abortion prior to viability of the fetus, or
when the abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the
woman.

123468. The performance of an abortion is unauthorized if either of
the following is true:
(a) The person performing or assisting in performing the abortion
is not a health care provider authorized to perform or assist in
performing an abortion pursuant to Section 2253 of the Business and
Professions Code.
(b) The abortion is performed on a viable fetus, and both of the
following are established:
(1) In the good faith medical judgment of the physician, the fetus
was viable.
(2) In the good faith medical judgment of the physician,
continuation of the pregnancy posed no risk to life or health of the
pregnant woman.

It is important to focus in on Sections 123466 & 123468 here because they show us where and when the fetus gains rights, ie. when it become “viable”. Viability is generally considered (presently) to be not before 24 weeks, after which time a child MAY BE (but not necessarily) viable (I don’t have sight for this one, but I did ask my wife who happens to be an OBGYN and that’s what she told me). Of course there is still the exception for when the abortion may be deemed necessary to protect the life of the mother (and here again I would agree with you SecretMethod70) which can be raised as an “affirmative self-defense”.

I still however fail to see any inconsistency in the law here (or at least in California Law). A women has the right to terminate her unwanted pregnancy prior to the time of viability, whereas, another does not have such a right (unless acting on behalf of the women and in accordance with California Law). Likewise, I may be justified in killing a bugler in my house whereas I would not be justified in shooting someone who was mugging me on the street (unless I am unable to escape and my life is in immanent peril, but for the purpose of this hypo let us presume my life is not in peril so we can compare apples to apples). Are these situation inconsistent with one another? No, I would argue that they are not because although they may seem similar there are still sufficient differences to justify the different results.