It is often asserted that the law does not recognize the moral equality of fetuses and embryos. That isn’t entirely true. In the abortion controversy, the battle is over which should be paramount—the life of the fetus or the autonomy of the woman—and the law has concluded that it is the woman.
But in other than abortion contexts, the unborn do often receive significant protection, and even equal moral value. Case in point: The conviction for murder of Bobby Cutts Jr. for killing his pregnant girlfriend and their late gestational unborn child. I use the term “unborn child” because I am not bound by the political correct biases of the AP style book, which insisted in the story linked below on repeatedly calling the dead baby a fetus. More importantly, the word baby is more accurate in this context than fetus because Cutts may face the death penalty—not for the murder of his girlfriend but of the baby. I use the word “baby” because murder is legally defined as the illegal intentional killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Moreover, in this case, there are special circumstances for the murder of the child leading to the possible death sentence for her killing. That certainly means the fetus is considered a full human being in the context of this crime. From the story:
Cutts, 30, was convicted of aggravated murder in the death of the nearlyfull-term female fetus, which carries the possible death penalty. The jury found him not guilty of aggravated murder in Davis’ death, a count that includes intent to kill with prior calculation. But they convicted him of a lesser charge of murder in her death.Society and the law take relativistic views about the unborn depending on circumstances. The paradoxes are remarkable. But this much is clear: Human fetuses and embryos have moral status—sometimes even equal moral status—to born people. And that is an undeniable truth.
