Yes I understood that. I'm saying that this is the full extent of what you've established here. That an abortion does nothing more than bother the fetus.
(btw, molestation, in the way you're using it, isn't a crime. Its usually associated with civil proceedings and could be said to be a tort.)
Not sure the law supports that it is a human being. You have equality laws there I believe. That all people are given the same rights. A fetus isn't. Therefore, we'd have to either say that the equality laws makes an exception for human being that are unborn or else they are generally seen as not being human beings. I think the latter is probably more realistic from a legal perspective.
Yes. Ive always agreed that an unborn child has rights. Clearly though their rights aren't as important as the rights of a born child and I think American law unilaterally supports my view in that. The fact that you're charged with a lesser crime for destroying an unborn child compared to a born child is an example of that.
I think the legal definition is the legal definition. I don't think I can dispute it. What does American law say?
If it says that murder is one person unlawfully killing another, but yet if you kill an unborn child but the act is not capable of being charged as murder one, then I suppose American law in this instance is saying that an unborn child is not a person. Right?
I find American law a little strange. However the way I understand it is that in most states you cannot commit murder one against an unborn child. Whereas of course you can against a child. This suggests that the unborn child has less rights than a born child even in criminal law.
