The New York law also states (with emphasis added): Killing the child became irrelevant under the law because the unborn child was not a person. “Person,” when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who has been born and is alive.Īs reported by, in an article by Heather Clark on February 10, 2019, titled “NY’s New Abortion Law Allows Man Who Killed Pregnant Girlfriend to Get Away With Death of Unborn Child,” Anthony Hobson, who killed both Jennifer Irigoyen and her unborn child, was only charged with the mother’s death.

The Senate bill includes this definition: The New York Reproductive Health Act (Senate Bill 240), enacted on January 22, 2019, clarifies that babies in the womb are not persons. Is the fetus a human being with sacred, inviolable rights, or is it just a clump of cells that might be inconvenient for a woman, much like a boil that can be removed at will? To me, this is the heart of the argument. So, let’s explore these three assumptions. The woman owns the clump of cells-what she does with them is nobody’s business but her own.The “fetus” is just a “clump of cells.”.This view rests on suppositions that are, in the opinion of many pro-life advocates, entirely untrue.

Pro-choice feminists argue that it’s all about a woman’s right to do what she feels is best for her body and that anyone arguing against abortion is a misogynist and a tyrant. The controversy after the approval in 2019 of New York’s Reproductive Health Act and its stipulation that abortion can take place up to the moment of birth, followed by then Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s remarks which seemed to approve of infanticide, have highlighted key variables in the arguments about abortion. ~ Is the fetus a human being with sacred, inviolable rights, or is it just a clump of cells that might be inconvenient for a woman, much like a boil that can be removed at will?

Humankind definition