(07-29-2022 09:57 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  How would anything other than a 'person' of sorts be a victim of a crime?

Just because critics say its a step towards personhood doesn't mean that this isn't precisely what is intended... they just don't like it... perhaps because they are against abortion and fetal homicide laws.

the language in Roe all but lays out these steps toward personhood that are not really complete until around 21 it seems.

Currently, personhood is defined by federal law as starting a birth - I don't see laws yet that have changed this explicitly, which is why I said this law was a step towards it. My understanding was that Roe does not go as far as saying that personhood is granted at viability.

From my perspective, if these laws truly define a fetus as a person, and not some in-between category, then there are significant implications.

All of a sudden abortion becomes illegal across the board, even with respect to abortion regardless of medical concerns, rape, or incest since a person would be murdered via an abortion.

Medical procedures like chemo, which could harm a person in the womb, come into question. Does a woman have to delay chemo because the person in the womb could be harmed without due process?

In a sillier measure, a pregnant woman would be allowed to travel in the HOV lane.

From a financial perspective, a pregnant woman gets to now declare a dependent on their tax returns.