lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Thank You CL.. A difficult question when so many different considerations play a factor....

There was a time where no consideration could be given to the fetus.. Theoretically it still carries little weight in being able to bring a wrongfull death claim and rather consideration goes to pain and suffering of the parent(s) only..

I’m sorry I could not provide more .. It really is a very convoluted mess even in courts or perhaps because of the inconsistent rulings....

Singularity

I was a medical student in 1980. Now retired.

Anecdotal evidence stirs emotion more readily than it provides reason, actionable information or substantive probative fact.

Conservative Christian political operatives and organizations have been trying for the years since RvW to influence the introduction of legislation to recognize or grant a direct or back door mechanism to legally defend the "rights of the unborn" who are not citizens under the Constitution until legally born here. The confusion reflects the variation in the plethora of attempts and spotty variegated successes comparing region to region producing a crazy quilt of various demi and pseudo human rights, State to State to Region, purported to be possessed by fetal humans, the swirling resulting confusion is what you are try to make some sense of here. But one continuous thread of success is related to that suggested by the Biblical distinction demonstrating an additional loss of property and free enjoyment of relationship value related to parents being deprived of the goods expected as a result of the pregnancy.

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

I do think that's a valid interpretation but it was written probably more than 3,000 years ago and there is plenty of room for an updating due to science.

Lindajoy's and your postings were the only ones that addressed my point. There is a lot of ambiguity in the law & there should be one single view from which the rest descends.

I agree with conservative Christians in this regard, that personhood begins at conception. There are only three absolutely incontrovertible points in the development of the human, conception, implantation and birth. All others are arbitrary and debatable.

Singularity

The personhood of the fetus is not in question, thus when personhood begins is relatively moot. Human rights under the Constitution are granted protection when the human is legally born or becomes a naturalized citizen. A******n is an allowed legal remedy or consequence to an intolerable opposition of competing rights between the woman and the human passenger in her womb.

Thank you for a reasoned response. Have yourself a best day!

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

Ambiguity in this entire question is verified by the sliding scale of penalties that did exist prior to Roe vs. Wade. In some states it was just a fine. In others jail time but of far less extent than full post-partum k*****g. In many cases, the charges were determined by autopsy. If the lung floated, the child had breathed.

This is the type of discussion I had hoped to evoke. Unfortunately, I let myself be distracted by anti-Catholic irrelevancy.

Singularity

Distraction is part of the package.☺

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

But one doesn't have to let it be & I did.