Strollerderby

so if someone in north dakota kills a newly pregnant woman, will they be charged in two deaths?

This will end well.

So I suppose all miscarriages will now be investigated as potential homicides now? Cuz, you know, maybe the mom did something that caused the miscarriage, like produced inefficient levels of progesterone or had one of those weird conditions that interfere with implantation. Some of those are treatable, so I guess all North Dakotan women should now go on preventive treatment in order to avoid accidentally killing someone before they even have a functioning placenta.

Way to either squander your law enforcement budget OR create a law that's totally unenforceable in practical application, ND! As it is, I think there's only one regular abortion provider (in Fargo), so it's not like North Dakotans aren't already hopping the MN border for their pregnancy termination care. Will that now be treated as some special kind of felony, since it involved crossing state lines? Oh, to be a police officer in ND....

I find it ironic that this story which advocates for not restricting a woman's reproductive rights is on the same web site as a story talking about how women's reproductive rights should be limited when they want to have too many babies (like Octo Mom).  There is a definite inconsistency there.  Which is it?  Do women control their fertility or does government?  Or is the consistency that the only reproductive rights that should be protected are those that result in fewer babies?

This is dumb beyond belief, considering how many miscarriages happen in the earliest stages after conception. Let's investigate all women who miscarry for manslaughter! Of course, pregnancy is hard to detect in those first few weeks, so mandatory pregnancy testing every two weeks for every woman. Ahh, that's some satisfying control over those female bodies.

No worries. No one actually lives in North Dakota.

Some of y'all are taking this way too far.  I think it's pretty obvious that if this were passed then miscarriages would be investigated just as much as SIDS is investigated today.  If there is a reason to believe that the mother willfully harmed their child, they will be investigated.  Just like any other crime.

Oh and to the author of this article.  You were making decent arguments until those last couple of paragraphs.  The kids whose parents are adopted and the gay couples who can't get married have one major difference with aborted babies.  They are STILL ALIVE.  No one is killing them.  Whether or not their rights are being infringed on is a different matter altogether.  Byt it way different than physically having their lives taken from them.

Laundry and Children is absolutely right.

Also, the only scientifically tenable position is that life begins at conception; saying that it begins at any other time is completely arbitrary. ND is taking this to its logical end, for better or for worse, and regardless of the legislators' motivations. And while perhaps the pro-life movement SHOULD concentrate some more energy on what happens after birth, it's hard to talk about a "culture of life" while condoning or standing idle in the face of abortion's death culture.

Finally, can you really blame the states (and their residents) for wanting to wrest back some sovereignty? There is no constitutional "right to privacy"; the Supreme Court acted un-democratically in handing down a decision on what should be a legislative matter. Checks and balances, people!

Laundry & Children: I challenge you to find one single post by any person who has made any pro-choice statement in which she/he also says that the law should be involved in situations such as the OctoMom case, or that having large families should be outlawed.

There's a difference between criticizing someone's actions and outlawing them. Criticizing someone's actions does not infringe on their rights.

If you're going to cry "hypocrisy," try and find some actual hypocrisy first.

Also, Dan: I can't believe you think that investigating a woman for murder after she has suffered a miscarriage is remotely reasonable. For a moment, please put yourself in the shoes of a woman who has miscarried a much-wanted baby, and imagine how she might feel if the police knocked on her door and questioned her. Shame on you and all people like you. You don't respect "life" or want to save people - you just want to hurt and control women. Disgusting.

Bunny, at what point did I say that I think opening a murder investigation for a woman who has had a miscarriage is reasonable.  I said it is as reasonable as investigating someone for SIDS ("sudden infant death syndrome").  Which if I'm not mistaken the vast majority of the time SIDS involves women who lost a much-wanted baby.  How often are those investigated?

So shame on you Bunny for not reading my comments as they were intended and jumping to far-fetched conclusions.  Disgusting.  Just kidding....kinda.  :)

Dan: you wrote "If there is a reason to believe that the mother willfully harmed their child, they will be investigated.  Just like any other crime."

Okay, so put yourself in the shoes of this woman: she goes to her obstetrician and complains to him about her morning sickness, and says that she kind of hates being pregnant. She really wants this baby but she's in a lousy mood - you would be too if you were barfing every day. She goes home, and the next day miscarries. She calls her doctor crying and tells him what happened. He thinks about what she said, and calls the police, who show up the next morning and question the crying would-be mother about her remarks to her obstetrician and ask her if she did anything to induce the miscarriage.

Fun, huh? But that's the kind of law that you're saying is just dandy.

Still disgusting.

ChiLaura and Dan,

I fear that you are woefully behind on your knowledge of recent history.

In our country and countries like Senegal and India, homosexuals are persecuted and murdered. Does the name Alan Shepard ring a bell, or was it ok to murder him because he made the wrong life choice? I'm pretty sure he was legally defined as a human.

Also, before Woe V. Wade, living women died in unnecessary numbers due to sepsis and hemorrhaging in the attempt to abort babies that were forced on them or that they could not provide for.

I'd personally be happy to never see another abortion on this planet again, but I'm not ignorant and I'm not in the same position as the women who do get abortions.

This might just be me, but when is it anyone's place to take away from someone the ability to make decisions pertinent to their life?

And one more thing,

State's Rights are the cause of the majority of problems in this country. They are outdated and should really be abolished.

Observe here the SIDS Investigation Protocol for the state of California:

www.californiasids.com/.../Death%20Scene%20Investigation%20Protocol%201106.pdf

Anyone who thinks this is acceptable treatment for a woman who's just miscarried scares me with their total lack of... whatever. It's ridiculous and stupid and wrong.

ChiLaura: Fertilized eggs don't fit the scientific definition of "life". Think viruses vs. bacteria.

Well Bunny, I guess we could go round and round about this.  We clearly hold a different perspective on the abortion issue.  You seem to care more about the emotions of the mother than the life of the child.  While I think both are important, I'd prefer that the life of the child not be taken.

As I said in my first comment, some of y'all are taking the fear of this legislation way too far.

Your scenario would be like a woman who is battling post-partum depression being investigated because her baby died of SIDS.  Sure, it can happen.  And probably does.  But it's not something you hear about every day.

I just don't see the authorities spending that much time looking into miscarriages, especially in the first trimester where the odds of having a miscarriage are so high.

That being said, I'm sure there would be cases where it is obvious that a woman intentionally did things that might cause a miscarriage.  Just as there are cases where a mother intentionally does something that ends up taking the life of her baby after he\she is born.  In both cases, they are murderers and should be prosecuted.  And in both cases, it's usually pretty darn obvious what the intent is.

Dan, it's the logical extension of the law -- which clearly demonstrates that these legislators haven't seriously reflected on the ramifications of their own goal. If they implement this Personhood designation in order to make abortion illegal, they can't avoid opening the can of worms that is making miscarriage necessarily investigable as homicide or manslaughter. I'm sure that wasn't their intent, but that's another reason why the law is ridiculous.

Sarah,

I can't say I'm familiar with Alan Shepard.  I tried to look the name up and all I got was a reference to an astronaut.  Were the people who murdered him not prosecuted?  If not, then clearly they should be.

And my point above only had to do with whether or not homosexuals had the right to marry and how it does not correlate at all to this new legislation.  Not whether or not they were being killed by people outside of our government (making an assumption that our government had nothing to do with his murder since I'm not up on that story).  And for every homosexual person you can tell me about that was wrongly killed, I can direct you to think about the vast number of babies who are also killed for no reason every year.

And to your comment...

"This might just be me, but when is it anyone's place to take away from someone the ability to make decisions pertinent to their life?"

I say - Where is the baby who is being murdered decision on whether or not he\she is kept alive being considered?  Just because that baby is inconvenient to the mother or because she can't take care of him\her does not mean she should kill the baby.  There are plenty of people waiting in line to adopt babies.

Also, the argument that women were dying before Roe because they tried to kill their babies is not really a good argument.  They shouldn't have been doing that in the first place.  Not that they deserve to die, but they definitely did not deserve the right to kill their baby either.

Sarah: You wouldn't, by chance, be talking about MATTHEW Shepard, now, would you? I've yet to hear of Alan. Just checking.

Lula,

I don't think it's the logical extension of the law at all.  Again, look at SIDS cases.  I didn't fully look over the documents you refered to with California's laws and protocols, but likely there are some things there that can be applied to miscarriages.

Again, it should be able to be very clear if a mother intentionally caused a miscarriage.  Protocols can be put in place and tests can be run that would keep 99.9% of women from ever getting anywhere close to an investigation.

Just so we're clear, here - if Roe v. Wade was reversed, Dan, would you have women who had an abortion prosecuted for murder? Would it be retroactive, so that women who had abortions before the reversal were prosecuted as well?

I mean, if you're calling it murder, let's bring it right out into the open. Would you lock a woman up for the rest of her life for getting an abortion? If she attempted it by swallowing poison, throwing herself down stairs, using a coat hanger on herself? What if she went to Canada or Europe to do it? How would the law handle it in your world?

Dan: First, do look over that document. The bulk of the 17 pages would easily apply to legal investigation of miscarriages -- why not, if Personhood is legally established at conception? SIDS deaths are investigated pretty much the same as any other death, since infants have the same legal status as other people (save age-related rights and responsibilities like voting, taxation and military service). Why do you believe miscarriage would or should be investigated any differenly, if fertilized eggs were accorded the same legal status as infants, children, or adults? What protocols would you suggest to circumvent that -- and why would you WANT to, if you believe fertilized eggs/embryos/fetuses to be the same as yourself? I figure you'd want your own death investigated in accordance with the appropriate medical and legal protocol, just in case someone killed you.

And if someone did kill you, I bet you'd want them prosecuted for manslaughter or murder, right? Which brings us to Bunny's question.

Lula:

Re: "Fertilized eggs don't fit the scientific definition of "life". Think viruses vs. bacteria."

What exactly do you mean here? Because the fertilized egg is dependent on another's body for life (thus, "virus")? I'm missing your meaning.

Bunny,

Yes, I would have the prosecuted.  No, it would not be retroactive.  Just like people who owned slaves were not prosecuted after the civil war.  Abortions are a stain on our country's history.  Just as slavery was.

Yes, it's absolutely murder and people who perform abortions should be prosecuted.  And yes, even if they almost kill themselves in the process.  Just like a someone almost kills himself when crashing his\her into someone else intentionally should be.

If they went to a country where it was legal, we could do nothing about that here.

Lula,

If SIDS cases are investigated in a way where the mother is questioned in each case, then yes I'd want miscarriages investigated the same way.  I was not under the impression that they were however.  I could be wrong.  But in general, yes, I'd want similar rules applied.

Actually, I don't know if adult deaths require 17 pages of investigation, the way SIDS does in California. But my position stands -- no reason *not* to investigate miscarriage the way we investigate SIDS, if we give fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses the same legal status as infants up to age 1. Except, of course, that it's a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money, esp. for an impoverished state like ND.

Which brings us to another question: What happens to North Dakotan embryos created for IVF? Firstly, IVF has a high failure rate, which means anyone doing IVF is putting people (i.e. single-digit-celled embryos) at an extreme risk for death. Is this acceptable? And what about the ones that don't get implanted? Is it okay to keep people in permanent deep-freeze, when doing so dramatically increasing the already unconscionably high risk of death if they're thawed out for future IVF attempts? Do we make laws mandating "adoption" of these unused embryos while they're still at their freshest, regardless of whether the egg and sperm donors want this?

Gets tricky really fast. If you want to outlaw abortion, I bet there are less complicated ways than making fertilized eggs legally equivalent to people.

Dan, are you aware that by your standards, about half of the women you know are murderers? It's entirely possible that your sister, your mother, your wife, or your daughter had an abortion at some point - in the matter of fact, it's probable that at least one of the women you love the most is a "murderer."

Just saying.

Another question: would abortion carry the same criminal penalties as murder of a born person? Would you advise a life sentence, as we typically would with an adult who kills another person? If so, why? If not, why not?

Dan, I appreciate your consistency. You scare the hell out of me, but obviously you know where you stand. All I can do now is a) never sleep with you, and b) never vote for you if you run for any kind of public office that would give you the opportunity to make reproductive health policy.

Bunny,

No, I'm not aware of that.  I can assure you that my mother never had an abortion.  Nor my wife.  Nor my...um...four year old daughter.  I was raised with a respect for life and am generally surrounded by people with that same respect.  Regardless, I'm sure there are people in my life with a cloudy past.  And I never said I was perfect either.

I would leave what sentence it constitutes up to lawmakers.  But yes, I would think it should be treated the same as murder.  A life is a life.  No matter how old or young.  Taking it from another person should carry the same penalties.

Lula,

I do also have some major issues with IVF.  Mostly dealing with after a point in time, many are actually discarded even though they are still viable.  Which does end a life.  I'm really torn there.  I can see where it has done a lot of good for a lot of people.  But many lives are indeed taken in the process as you said.

It does get tricky.  And I don't claim to have all the answers.  As I said above, I lean toward protecting as many lives as possible.  And I support any law that tries to protect the unborn.

Lula,

LOL, I have no interest in sleeping with anyone but my wife and am also not interested in running for public office so you are safe on both counts.  :)

Thanks everyone for the (generally) cordial conversation.  I'm stepping away now but may check back later.

Protecting the "unborn" and giving fertilized eggs Personhood status before they even become embryos or fetuses are miles apart in my eyes. Perhaps not in yours, Dan, but we're not going to agree on much re: this topic anyway.

And I guarantee you that there are plenty of the women you consider family or friends are murderers -- excuse me, women who've had abortions. You are exactly the kind of person who never, never gets told about that decision, for obvious reasons. I don't mean that as an insult, either - just a statement of fact.

ChiLaura: Google around for the biological definition of Life (usually defined by four criteria). It should be pretty clear that fertilized eggs prior to conception do not, once you find an article that lays it out. There's not really consensus on whether viruses meet the criteria, just like there isn't WRT pre-viable fetuses (which of course are much more developed than implanted embryos, which are much more developed than fertilized eggs). So giving fertilized eggs Personhood status doesn't really make anything easier at all -- it's just another arbitrary designation, same as all the others applying to human development prior to live birth.

Sorry: Prior to implantation. Conception is generally defined as fertilization of egg by sperm. Pregnancy starts with successful implantation of a fertilized egg.

And LOL back at you Dan, since I don't want to sleep with you either.

If abortion were flat-out illegal it would be necessary to incarcerate pregnant women to make sure they do not harm their babies.  This is a horrific concept where women's bodies become the property of the state to grow new citizens.  The one thing any human should have absolute ownership of is their own body.  If the pro-lifers spent all their money on finding a way to grow babies outside of unwilling women it would be a better use of their time & money.

Bunny- The Strollerderby article I was talking about was posted today as well.

www.babble.com/.../nadya-suleman-s-gift-to-society-a-cautionary-tale.aspx

It says, "I do think regulating the creation of high-risk pregnancies and high-needs premature babies is more than reasonable:  it's a moral imperative."

This sounds like telling people how to control their reproductive rights should they choose to have multiple embryos implanted.

It goes on to say, "I think the British model is closer to just right, allowing for different patient situations that require more or less aggressive treatments while still disallowing the transfer of six embryos on demand--especially the demand of woman with a good fertility track record, six existing children and probable mental instability."

So who controls how many babies?  Who controls when the babies are created or transferred?  Is it the woman?  It's her body (as the pro-choice movement often says).  So, does the woman control her reproductive rights or does the government?  How can one say that the government should allow a woman to choose to terminate her pregnancy but then say that the state has the right to tell her that she is not allowed to create a pregnancy of her choosing?  Are we saying that the only choice you can make is what you take out of your uterus, not what you put in it?  That sounds hypicritical to me.

And if we are going to look out for the welfare of unborn children who are part of a multiple baby pregnancy, why not look out for the rights of all unborn children?  You can not have it both ways.

You asked me to site it, and I there you go.

Roe vs. Wade *did* establish a measure of governmental control over when a pregnancy can be legally terminated. There are restrictions on all abortions done after the first 12 weeks' gestation, with states getting some measure of what they'll allow or not allow and doctors getting to control the rest. Contrary to mythology, a woman cannot get a legal (or safe) abortion right up until she pushes a living baby out of her vagina. So since we've already got a mix of government and personal control going on re: reproductive health policy, why *not* limit the number of transferrable embryos to three in the name of maternal-child health promotion? Countries with much saner sexual health policy (including contraception and abortion access) have done so - why not follow what's working out to be best practice on a global scale?

"in the name of maternal-child health promotion"  Really?  Why is it that you would advocate for "child health promotion" for one unborn child, but not for another?  If, as you say, the restrictions on abortion start at 12 weeks, then we are all talking about embryos.  The embryos that are being implanted have the right to grow up in an environment that is healthy and safe so that they can have the best chance at a full and meaningful life free of preventable health complications.  But, other embryos, should be killed, terminated, aborted, or whatever other word you want to use.  Now I understand.  Safe and protected life for one kind of embryo, no life for another.  Got it!

L&C, you and I are not going to agree. If you truly believe that a fertilized egg is the same as a 6-month old baby or a 40yo adult, you are welcome to that belief. You are welcome to move to North Dakota, where legislators apparently share your belief. You are welcome to adopt all the "Snowflake Babies" that you believe need homes just as much as all the children and youth who are currently living in foster care, in youth shelters and group homes, or on the street. I won't try to argue you out of your belief, because a) that's a waste of my energy, and b) it's not really my business.

But likewise, you will never convince me that your belief should be made into primary healthcare policy for our nation. I say that as a maternal-child public health worker, and as a person with my own firm spiritual and philosophical beliefs about Life and morality and compassion. Mine drive me to fight laws like this ND one as being FUBAR. They drove me far far away from the Dakotas after I no longer had to live there, and I don't go back now except to visit friends. I also choose not to live in countries where the illegality of abortion leads to massive maternal morbidity and mortality rates, because women WILL have abortions when they believe that's the best thing they can do for themselves and their families.

Abortion has always been a reality, legal or not. It always will. People like you and I will probably always be on at odds with each other over what that means for healthcare policy and legal guidelines. I accept that, and therefore refuse to participate in a time-wasting argument with you. Enjoy your life and do good work.

FWIW, in human development we define an embryo from implantation to 8 weeks' gestation. The fetal stage lasts from 8-9 weeks to birth. I figure that makes no difference to you since you believe fertilized egg through senior citizen on his/her death bed to be all the same, but I'll put it out there for those who might like to know how the terminology works.

    I'm old enough to remember when it was considered a sin (with considerable discussion of murder) for a mature woman to leave an egg unfertilized.  If laws can prosecute (or voices can persecute) for the abandonment of frozen eggs, can the prosecution of unpregnant women be far behind?

    For those of you too young to remember the days when women were persecuted for trying to control their lives, you might want to discuss this with your grandmother, or perhaps with your mother, if she's old enough to remember the laws and arguments of 1973.    

And all the republicans say- WOOHOO!! It is about time someone stood up and fought for the right to life. Pro-abortionists always whine for the right of the mother's body. What about the right of the baby's body? There is proof that abortion is painful to the unborn baby. Aren't you glad your mother didn't want "her body back to herself" when she was pregnant with you?

Another topic this brings up is the age-old debate of the woman who gets an abortion has a "fetus" in her and the woman who gets hit by a drunk driver causing a miscarriage was holding a "baby" in her tummy. The definition is needed. It is such a blurry line. If they are not really babies in there, how can you prosecute for a double homocide when people like Lacey Peterson are brutally murdered?

Finally, the jump from abortion to illegal aliens rights and gay rights is so overdone and stupid. Focus on what you are talking about.

If my mother had aborted me, or if I'd been miscarried, I wouldn't have existed to have an opinion about it. No one would have known me to miss me. There would have been no loss to the world if I hadn't come into existence, *because* I would not have existed in any knowable sense. So to that argument, I say "WTF are you talking about?" That one never makes any sense to me.

I deeply honor my mother for all the sacrifices and discomforts she willingly underwent in order to put me on the planet. It's because motherhood is such a profound and life-changing experience on all levels, and because the moral weight of bringing a new life into experiential existence is so incredibly heavy, that I am committed to ensuring that women don't enter into that contract with Life against their will. This is my religious position, which compliments my secular views on the issue of reproductive justice. The fact that it conflicts with the religious worldview held by many Christian anti-abortionists isn't something I fret over.

I think it would be be great if we all considered bringing a pregnancy to birth to be a much bigger moral deal than *not* bringing a pregnancy to birth. I certainly don't speak for all pro-choice people, but I'm pretty sure  that's where a lot of us "pro-aborts" are coming from on this issue.

One act brings about pregnancy. There is no "accidental" pregnancy. (Obviously excluding rape). If a person does not want to become pregnant there is a way to prevent that outcome. Actually there are several. No child should be given the death penalty because their mom committed an act that is meant to bring forth life.

How about adoption? Many families would love to have someone's mistake become their blessing. Oh wait, is the argument going to be that many women could not do such an unthinkable thing such as give up their child, so instead they will put it to death and keep it from being the blessing it was meant to be?

I truly respect that we have different beliefs on things. I respect your conviction to what you believe. I would actually meet you in the middle on this one. While I don't believe that any rules against abortion will stop all abortions I would like to see laws that do not allow minors abortions without parent notification. I would not have my beautiful older sisters if my mom would not have had to tell her parents she was going to get an abortion. She knew it would not go over well with her parents, and she gave birth to her twins at 18. They are also thankful for the laws at that time.

We're not talking about morality here. We're talking about the law. This law in particular is a bad one, because it is unenforceable. It is impossible to know whether or not an egg has been fertilized. This is why a pregnancy is charted from the last menstrual period - it is the only true indicator of a time when the woman was not pregnant. One cannot know when fertilization takes place. One cannot know when implantation takes place. For these reasons alone, a law to protect a fertilized egg is not a good law. This law makes a woman with an IUD a potential murderer, and the problem with this is that since it is unknowable whether or not an egg was fertilized, it is unknowable whether or not the woman with an IUD is a murderer. We can debate whether or not abortion should be legal or not, whether IVF should be regulated or not - but to legally define life as beginning at fertilization or implantation is a bad law because it is unknowable. Plain and simple.

On another note - supply-side economics does not work. To reduce the demand for abortion through reduction in supply (or to make women murderers for having abortions) does not work. Our anti-abortion efforts would be much more effective if we followed economic theory, and reduced demand... theory dictates that supply will drop as demand does, to reach equilibrium. Let's work on reducing unwanted pregnancy, through abstinence AND reproductive and contraceptive education for appropriate-aged children (according to the CDC, 52% of abortions are performed on women under the age of 25), as well as increasing funds available for women in our poorest neighborhoods (the abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level is 4x's higher than those who earn 300% more than the federal poverty level of $9,570). Increase the standard of living for our poorest citizens, and you'd see a dramatic decrease in the number of abortions.

But back to THIS law and THIS issue - look, everyone here is all for decreasing the number of abortions. But good laws are good laws, and bad laws are bad laws. Because you cannot determine when an egg is fertilized, you cannot enforce this law. Period.

And right on the La Femme Nikita, for cutting through all the navel-gazing and getting directly to the pragmatics. Thanks!

I really don't want to fight the great pro-life vs pro-choice game here.  

But if I were pregnant with a much-wanted and loved baby (yeah, fetus whatever), and I got into a car accident caused by a drunk driver and said accident killed my beloved baby, I think ND would be able to throw the book at my child's killer.

Call me bitter, but I'd be all for it.

What are our laws based on if not morality?  Should we put a big list of things on a wall and throw darts at it?  Hit an action and it's illegal, but miss it and it is illegal?  Murder and theft are illegal because they are wrong, morally.  Law and morality can not be separated.

Accidental as in having no idea that the outcome was possible. Not that the outcome was not intentional.

I think people are taking this way too far. Overexamining every little possibility. I don't believe anyone would throw up a court case over an ectopic pregnancy. I don't think that every miscarriage would be examined. I do believe the intent of the law would be to help prevent abortion without saying it was to prevent abortion and causing an outrage from the liberal pro-abortion crowd. Obviously, not a wise move as people just aren't as gullible and stupid as ND wants to think they will be.

I do think La Femme Nakita says it best in her comment about supply and demand theory. I think we can save everyone heartache and argument to stop fighting and start educating.

I realize I have an unpopular voice on here. This is a subject that brings up alot of emotion and strong opinions from most people.

Dan, Lula, etc,

Matthew Shepard. I eat my words. Shame on me.

Shame on you, however, for being so dogmatically anti-women and anti-reason that you consider a fertilized embryo, a blastocyst, or a zygote to be a living breathing human being.

Support real sex education, birth control awareness, the subsidizing of birth control, and the ability for all women in this country to have reasonable access to medical care (including the gynocologist). Work towards making abortion obsolete.

Its a far greater goal than blowing hot air and harassing women who have to make a tough choice. Its always the weakest people who kick someone when they are down.

@ Twyla - see, we do need to examine every possibility, because if we are going to pass a law, some judge will be required to rule on each case. While we can argue that not every case will appear before a judge, what if it did? A law needs to be able to be applied evenly - it's why depictions of Justice are blindfolded: so a judge can rule on the merits of the case without prejudice. If a fertilized egg has personhood status, then ending the "life" of any fertilized egg results in murder. Therefore, ending an ectopic pregnancy is murder under the law. This is regardless of whether or not the case is brought to court. We can argue that all people who run a red light or steal a candy bar don't get caught and therefore don't always get prosecuted but they're still breaking the law. It is up to the discretion of the district attorney to prosecute a doctor or woman who ends an ectopic pregnancy. Nonetheless, it does not negate that, under the law, it would be murder.

@ Laundry and Children - while yes, our laws are based upon morality, they also need to be enforceable equally and without prejudice. Something that is immoral should always be so (under the law). Therefore ending the "life" of a zygote would always be wrong, whether it be due to ending an ectopic pregnancy (which could be equated to justifiable homicide) versus abortion (which would then be equated to murder). I don't want to be the one who tells a woman that her miscarriage is justifiable homicide...

Also, for all those in favor or supportive of this law, I ask you this: what should be the sentence for a woman who breaks the law and decides to have an abortion?