"Unborn Child"--Arizona Style
Our favorite B.Ph.D. links to an article about an Arizona bill (SB 1052), and comments:
A bill, ostensibly to punish the killing of pregnant women, that makes a fetus legally equal to its mother. The law explicitly makes an exception for abortion.
After reading the bill, titled protection of unborn children, I'll have to disagree with her a bit. This is not a bill about pregnant women, but rather about "unborn children".
In case you're not exactly sure what "unborn child" means [I wasn't], the Arizona legislature provides the definition. Actually, they provide several definitions. Feel free to select the one that strikes your fancy [I'm going with B. I find not having to couple giving birth to uterine location (in utero, ex utero, makes no difference) irresistible.]:
A) ..."UNBORN CHILD" MEANS AN UNBORN CHILD AT ANY STAGE OF ITS DEVELOPMENT. (scroll to bottom of page)
B) ...an unborn child shall be considered to be a child who is under twelve years of age (scroll to the middle of the page).
From the surface of the woman's and man's kidney (that's the area where the earliest sign of a gonad appears) when they are embryos themselves [the woman and man having gonads is an essential stage in the development of any child they might have], to a child under 12 years of age, it's all the same in Arizona.
See, this is what happens when you make up terms ("unborn child", "partial-birth" abortion)--reality tends to get in the way. In real life, a genital ridge, a fertilized egg (zygote), blastomers, a morula, a blastocyst, an embryo, a fetus, a neonate, and a child, under 12 years of age, are not interchangeable.
My take on SB 1052: There are enough reality-based problems we need to tackle, both in society in general, and in the reproductive health arena, in particular. It would be most helpful if assorted politicians would refrain from making up medical terms.