Roe v. Wade - Legal Status of the Pre-Born Child

[Luigi]

Others claim: The developing matter in the womb is a fetus, not a child. It has (or should have) no legal protections under the law. 

I reply: Based on biological arguments mentions in the "when life begins" thread, the developing matter in the womb is human; it is a separate and unique combination of human DNA which has never existed in the history of humankind nor will ever again exist in the future of humankind; the fetus is living - developing according to its own timetable and plan which we understand very well thanks to embryology. So the developing matter in the womb is a unique, living, human being. 

In some cases, such as the murder of a pregnant woman, courts have accepted the fetus as a human being endowed with legal protections. In other cases, such as when the father does not want the mother to abort a fetus, courts have held that the fetus is not a child. Similar to the "right to privacy," personhood-under-the-law seems to be granted by the government at random rather than on any legal or constitutional basis. 

From a slightly different perspective, courts seem to accept the fetus as non-human if the mother doesn't want the child and yet accept the fetus as human if the mother wants the child. It cannot be a reasonable legal argument that the same substance is human or non-human, person or non-person, legal protected or legally unprotected, based solely on the desire of the mother.