room for both?

[keryx]

I've seen a bunch of feminists on my friends list complaining that Scott Peterson was convicted for killing his possibly born possibly not born kid. Because prosecuting someone under UVVA (which I think was the case here) seems to erode abortion rights. I'm not sure it has to, but that was undoubtedly a part of the intent of the people who wrote the law.

Will we reach a point as a country where it's possible to say again - this almost full term fetus who was planned for an wanted is a baby, and killing it (by killing or hurting a pregnant woman) is bad, but this other fetus isn't? Morality can be situational, is what I'm saying, and it seems like there was room for that possibility in the past. Legal interpretation doesn't seem to have room for that now. But could it? Hmm.

Comments

[keryx.livejournal.com]

My confusion is that I thought existing extra penalties for injuring a pregnant woman tread into the same area - treating a fetus as a sort of semi-person, basically. I don't understand the full breadth of UVVA compared to other stuff, and why (other than chipping away at reproductive rights) anyone would have thought it was needed.

I didn't know, for instance, what I learned from your post re: intent when applied to UVVA. That seems like a fundamental erosion of criminal law.