"Then explain to me why a pregnant woman was hit by a car not long ago leading to the death of both mother and baby . Resulting in a double vehicular homicide charge being leveled against the driver ? How can that be if the unborn child does n't have rights as a human being ? And why could the mother have aborted that baby legally if she chose to ? Is n't that a true catch 22 for the unborn , and a contradiction in the law ?"
"Because that the law one has to presume and of course the law applied to that specific case . As to it being contradictory - well the law is loaded with contradictions if you look at all closely . On the other hand consider that the driver killed the woman AND obviously damaged her fetus beyond recovery - WITHOUT the consent of the woman . In other words the death of the fetus was not by consent of the person who holds the right to decide but rather by the negligence or intent of the guilty party . And yes prior to her death ( assumming all other requirements were met ) she could have AT HER CHOICE and UN-COERCED have chosen to abort the fetus without incurring a legal penalty . But that would of course be much different ."
"unborn child does n't have rights as a human being ? true catch 22 ,"
"damaged her fetus beyond recovery - WITHOUT the consent of the woman death of the fetus was not by consent"