I am confused. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (United States code: Title 18, Chapter 1, crimes, and Title 10, Chapter 22, Uniform Code of Military Justice) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a "member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development who is carried in the womb."
The act also explicitly contains a provision exempting abortion, stating that the legislation would not be construed to permit the prosecution "of any person relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by the law to act on her behalf," or "any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman with respect to her unborn child."
I think Sen. John Kerry said it well, "I have serious concerns about this legislation because the law cannot simultaneously provide that the fetus is a human being and protect the right of the mother to choose to terminate her pregnancy."
So, I am confused. As I understand this legislation, an unborn child - at any stage of development (by legal definition ) - is a living human being until it he/she becomes a right.
Scott Peterson is convicted of second-degree murder for killing his unborn child and first-degree murder in the death of his wife, Laci Peterson, but a doctor performing an abortion is not accused of killing a child.
This must mean a mother is not a caretaker, or a helper of her "child in utero," rather, she is the complete owner of it - like a chair or a piece of jewelry - to do with it as she pleases. She can sell it, give it away, or destroy it. The big difference is that a heartbeat makes the "child in utero" work, not batteries.
How sad it is that such a blatant double standard not only exists in this country, but is applauded. How much more sad it is when our moral compasses can't distinguish between the two.
Ken Francis, Front Royal