fetus

A fetus is not a person, and the act is not unlawful.

Because the deer is not a person, while a fetus is.

That question could be about the stages of fetus development, which is not an stupid thing to ponder.

All those pregnant women who want to have their fetus examined really shouldn't be doing that.

As each of these cells in the developing fetus multiplies, its descendant cells all have the same X chromosome activated.

By what rational basis is a deer less worthy of (any particular) rights than a fetus?

Chimpanzee has higher sentience than a 4-weeks old fetus which has sentience level of a fish.

The nagging but chronic stress of being visible from behind can't be good for the fetus.

If you think a fetus could not possibly have rights until birth, allowing abortion is easy.

Aborting a chicken fetus for science seems a lot less barbaric then raising and killing animals as an unnecessary food source.

The needs of a fetus don't outweigh the needs or rights of the mother.

I don't understand the leap here, but it would depend on how far the fetus was in development.

And so I asked Google "Is a fetus a person?" The top result[0], from what appears to be a pro-choice activist site, is an article purporting to take on the argument that a fetus is a person.

> They recently announced a "pregnancy mode" in their router product, due to widespread concern about the effect of WiFi signals on the fetus.

* They recently announced a "pregnancy mode" in their router product, due to widespread concern about the effect of WiFi signals on the fetus.

By way of comparison, most countries have multiple distinct crimes or not-crimes that "killing someone" can fall into: killing an enemy soldier in wartime is generally okayed, offing a fetus is okayed in many countries, killing someone by accident is (broadly speaking) manslaughter, and doing it intentionally (if it doesn't fall into one of the above categories) is murder.