How Does The Law Determine When The Unborn Become “Persons”?

I’ve been doing some thinking lately about personhood in regards to the unborn. It seems the law has a double standard on this issue.  When it comes to abortion, the law does not recognize the child as a person and  therefore it is legal to terminate the pregnancy. When it comes to a man murdering a pregnant woman, the child miraculously becomes a person and the man is charged with double homicide.

Who defines which child is person and which is not? If a woman has the legal right to end the life of her child at any time and for any reason, Why is it considered double murder when a pregnant woman is killed? According to pro-abortion advocates, the fetus is not a person, is nothing but a blob of tissue, or a “product of conception”.

Both Scott Peterson and Aaron Ashley were convicted of two counts of murder. Peterson for the death of his wife and unborn son, and Ashley for the murder of his girlfriend and unborn child.

Who determined the personhood of these two children? Why are their cases so special? If an unborn child is not a person with the Constitutional right to life, why were these men convicted of two murders?

The courts and prosecutors in these cases recognized both unborn children as persons.

So are they persons when a man chooses to kill them, but become a “blob of tissue” or a “product of conception” when a mother chooses to? Seems a bit unfair.  It is perfectly legal for a woman to kill her unborn child, but if the father does it, it becomes a capital offense.

Would they still be charged with double murder if the woman had an appointment for an abortion the day after she and the baby were killed? More than likely. It wouldn’t matter that she intended to kill her child, after all its her right. For a man its a crime.

If the unborn are recognized as persons in one area of the law, they should be considered persons across the board, no exceptions.

Until next time friends, God Bless.

Advertisements