Here is how the car crash resulted in the murder of two instead
of one:
Mother being killed = murder.
Mother is carrying life. Until the very moment ACTS OUT her
choice via appropriate channels, _by default_, the mother's
IMPLIED INTENT is to carry the baby to term and produce life.
Until the moment she _acts out_ her choice via appropriate
channels, the cells inside of her are legally considered a life,
and the death includes all the FUTURE POTENTIALS removed as if
the fetus had gone to term and been born, became a child, kid,
teen, adult, middle aged person, old person, elderly - hooked up
to a machine without a DNR order on the head of his/her bed.
Until she acts out a legally sanctioned choice, the fetal cells
in her body are equivalent to me.
To you.
Simple as that. But why? You're thinking forward in time. Murder
is a crime because of the future potentials that are being
eliminated.
The mother has a right to remove the future potential and it is
not considered murder. That is our law.
But nobody else has the the right, because the future potential
extends from the rights of the mother, confers to what she is
carrying inside of her, which gives it equivalent right-to-life
as Jonathan Norton, Kenneth Udut, or anybody here.
No need for a special term. That would just be prejudice.
Logically, it's murder. other says 'fetus becomes *person at
birth' - my response - That is a religious position you are
espousing. The legal position confers infanthood <-- personhood
by virtue of the mother.
