Welcome to Gaia! ::

I have seen more than one pro-choicer say abortion is all right because the fetus is not a person. Is it possible the tide is turning however?

"State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Victims
(Fetal Homicide)

National Right to Life Committee
May 9, 2007

What appears below is a summary of the laws of the 35 states that recognize the unlawful killing of an unborn child as homicide in at least some circumstances. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, enacted April 1, 2004, covers unborn victims of federal and military crimes.

Full-Coverage Unborn Victim States (25)
(States With Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Children as Victims Throughout the Period of Pre-natal Development)

Alabama: Legislation taking effect July 1, 2006 (HB 19) amended Section 13A-6-1 of the Code of Alabama to include "an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability" as a "person" and "human being" for purposes of the state laws dealing with murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and assault.

Alaska: Alaska Statutes 11.41 (as amended by Senate Bill 20, enacted June 16, 2006) establishes the crimes of "murder of an unborn child," "manslaughter of an unborn child," "criminally negligent homicide of an unborn child," and "assault of an unborn child." Alaska Statutes 11.81.900(b) defines "unborn child" as "a member of species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

Arizona: The "unborn child in the womb at any stage of its development" is fully covered by the state's murder and manslaughter statutes. For purposes of establishing the level of punishment, a victim who is "an unborn child shall be treated like a minor who is under twelve years of age." Senate Bill 1052, signed into law on April 25, 2005, amending the following sections of the Arizona Revised Statutes: 13-604, 13-604.01, 13-703, 13-1102, 13-1103, 13-1104, 13-1105, 13-4062, 31-412, 41-1604.11 and 41-1604.13.

Georgia: Legislation taking effect July 1, 2006 (SB 77) recognizes an "unborn child" (defined as "a member of the species homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb") as a victim of the offenses of feticide, voluntary manslaughter of an unborn child, assault of an unborn child, and battery of an unborn child. (Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Sections 16-5-20, 16-5-28, 16-5-29, 16-5-80)

Idaho: Murder is defined as the killing of a "human embryo or fetus" under certain conditions. The law provides that manslaughter includes the unlawful killing of a human embryo or fetus without malice. The law provides that a person commits aggravated battery when, in committing battery upon the person of a pregnant female, that person causes great bodily harm, permanent disability or permanent disfigurement to an embryo or fetus. Idaho Sess. Law Chap. 330 (SB1344)(2002).

Illinois: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is intentional homicide, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter or reckless homicide. Ill. Comp. Stat. ch. 720, §§5/9-1.2, 5/9-2.1, 5/9-3.2 (1993). Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 720 § 5/12-3.1. A person commits battery of an unborn child if he intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means causes bodily harm to an unborn child. Read with Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 720 § 5/12-4.4.

Kansas: Under "Alexa's Law," signed into law on May 9, 2007, as part of HB 2062, effective July 1, 2007, an "unborn child," meaning "a living individual organism of the species homo sapiens, in utero, at any stage of gestation from fertilization to birth," is defined as a "person" and a "human being" for the purposes of the Kansas statutes against first degree murder, second degree murder, capital murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, vehicular homicide, and numerous battery offenses.

Kentucky: Since February, 2004, Kentucky law establishes a crime of "fetal homicide" in the first, second, third, and fourth degrees. The law covers an "unborn child," defined as "a member of the species homo sapiens in utero from conception onward, without regard to age, health, or condition of dependency."

Louisiana: The killing of an "unborn child" is first degree feticide, second degree feticide, or third degree feticide. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§14:32.5 - 14.32.8, read with §§14:2(1), (7), (11) (West 1997).

Michigan: The killing of an "unborn quick child" is manslaughter under Mich. Stat. Ann. § 28.555. The Supreme Court of Michigan interpreted this statute to apply to only those unborn children who are viable. Larkin v. Cahalan, 208 N.W.2d 176 (Mich. 1973). However, a separate Michigan law, effective Jan. 1, 1999, provides felony penalties for actions that intentionally, or in wanton or willful disregard for consequences, cause a "miscarriage or stillbirth," or cause "aggravated physical injury to an embryo or fetus."(M.C.L. 750.90a through 750.90f)

Minnesota: Since 1986 the killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is murder (first, second, or third degree) or manslaughter, (first or second degree). It is also a felony to cause the death of an "unborn child" during the commission of a felony. Minn. Stat. Ann. §§609.266, 609.2661- 609.2665, 609.268(1) (West 1987). The death of an "unborn child" through operation of a motor vehicle is criminal vehicular operation. Minn. Stat. Ann. §609.21 (West 1999).

Mississippi: Under a law enacted May 6, 2004, and effective July 1, 2004, for purposes of enumerated state laws dealing with various types of homicide and certain other violent crimes, "the term 'human being' includes an unborn child at every stage of gestation from conception until live birth and the term 'unborn child' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." (SB 2869)
Missouri: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is involuntary manslaughter or first degree murder. Mo. Ann. Stat. §§1.205, 565.024, 565.020 (Vernon Supp. 1999), State v. Knapp, 843 S.W.2d 345 (Mo. 1992), State v. Holcomb, 956 S.W.2d 286 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997).

Nebraska: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is murder in the first degree, second degree, or manslaughter. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-391 to § 28-394. (2002) In addition, "The Assault of an Unborn Child Act," effective April 13, 2006, provides that a criminal attacker who causes "serious bodily injury" to an unborn child commits the offense of "assault on an unborn child" in the first, second, or third degree. "Unborn child" is defined as "an individual member of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of development in utero." (LB 57, 2006)

North Dakota: Since 1987 the killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is murder, felony murder, manslaughter, or negligent homicide. N.D. Cent. Code §§12.1-17.1-01 to 12.1-17.1-04 (1997).

Ohio: At any stage of pre-natal development, if an "unborn member of the species homo sapiens, who is or was carried in the womb of another" is killed, it is aggravated murder, murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, aggravated vehicular homicide, and vehicular homicide. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 2903.01 to 2903.07, 2903.09 (Anderson 1996 & Supp. 199 cool .

Oklahoma: House Bill 1686, signed into law on May 20, 2005, recognizes "an unborn child" as a victim under state laws against murder, manslaughter, and certain other acts of violence. The law defines "unborn child" as "the unborn offspring of human beings from the moment of conception, through pregnancy, and until live birth including the human conceptus, zygote, morula, blastocyst, embryo and fetus." Following upon the law enacted in 2005, Senate Bill 1742, signed into law May 23, 2006, ensures that Oklahoma’s recognition of the unborn child as a separate victim applies uniformly across all of Oklahoma’s homicide statutes.
Pennsylvania: An individual commits criminal homicide in the first, second, or third-degree, or voluntary manslaughter of an "unborn child" if the individual intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of an unborn child. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §§ 2601 to 2609 (1997) "Unborn child" and "fetus." Each term shall mean an individual organism of the species Homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth." On December 27, 2006, in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Bullock (J-43-2006), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously rejected an array of constitutional challenges to the law, including claims based on Roe v. Wade and equal protection doctrine.

South Carolina: S. 1084, signed into law and effective on June 2, 2006, recognizes a "child in utero" who is enjured or killed during an act of criminal violence as a separate victim of a separate offense. The term "child in utero" is defined as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

South Dakota: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is fetal homicide, manslaughter, or vehicular homicide. S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §22-16-1, 22-16-1.1, 22-16-15(5), 22-16-20, and 22-16-41, read with §§ 22-1-2(31), 22-1-2(50A) (Supp. 1997).

Texas: Under a law signed June 20, 2003, and effective September 1, 2003, the protections of the entire criminal code extend to "an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth." The law does not apply to "conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child" or to "a lawful medical procedure performed by a physican or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent." (SB 319, Prenatal Protection Act)

Utah: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is treated as any other homicide. Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-201 et seq. (Supp. 199 cool and UT SB 178 (2002). See Utah Supreme Court decision in State of Utah v. MacGuire (January 23, 2004).

Virginia: Effective July 1, 2004, Code of Virginia Section 18.2-32.2 provides: "Any person who unlawfully, willfully, deliberately, maliciously and with premeditation kills the fetus of another" may be imprisoned from 20 years to life; and any person who does so without premeditation may be imprisoned for not less than five nor more than 40 years.

West Virginia: 2005 Senate Bill 146, signed into law on May 20, 2005, provided that "a pregnant woman and the embryo or fetus she is carrying in the womb constitute separate and distinct victims" for purposes of the state laws governing murder, manslaughter, and certain other crimes of violence. Code of West Virginia Section 61-2-30.

Wisconsin: Since 1998 the killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, second-degree intentional homicide, second-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, homicide by intoxicated use of vehicle or firearm, or homicide by negligent operation of vehicle. Wis. Stat. Ann. §§939.75, 939.24, 939.25, 940.01, 940.02, 940.05, 940.06, 940.08, 940.09, 940.10 (West 199 cool .

Partial-Coverage Unborn Victim States (10)
(States with Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Children as Victims, But only During Part of the Period of Pre-natal Development)

NOTE: These laws are gravely deficient because they do not recognize unborn children as victims during certain periods of their pre-natal development. Nevertheless, they are described here for informational purposes.

Arkansas: The killing of an "unborn child" of twelve weeks or greater gestation is capital murder, murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, manslaughter, or negligent homicide. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 5-1-102(13)(b)(i)(a), read with Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 5-10-101 to 5-10-105. (A separate Arkansas law makes it a battery to cause injury to a woman during a Class A misdemeanor to cause her to undergo a miscarriage or stillbirth, or to cause injury under conditions manifesting extreme indifference to human life and that results in a miscarriage or stillbirth. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 5-13-201 (a)(5)(a)).

California: California Penal Code § 187(a) says, "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought." The words "or a fetus" were added by the legislature in 1970. The California Supreme Court later interpreted "fetus" to apply "beyond the embryonic stage of seven to eight weeks." (People v. Davis, 1994) In addition, Penal Code § 190.2(3) makes a defendant eligible for capital punishment if convicted of more than one murder, and the California Supreme Court ruled that fetal homicide is included under this provision as well (People v. Dennis, 199 cool .

Florida: The unlawful killing of an "unborn quick child" is murder in the same degree as if committed against the mother. [Fla. Stat. Ann. § 782.09 (West 2005)]. Other provisions cover the killing of an "unborn quick child" as manslaughter [Fla. Stat. Ann § 782.09 (West 2005)], vehicular homicide [Fla. Stat. Ann. § 782.071 (West 1999)], and DUI manslaughter [Fla. Stat. Ann. § 316.193 (West 2005)]. Under Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 316.193 and 782.09, the term "unborn quick child" is the same as the term "viable fetus," which is defined in the following way: "... a fetus is viable when it becomes capable of meaningful life outside the womb through standard medical measures." [Fla. Stat. Ann § 782.071 (West 2005)].

Indiana: The killing of "a fetus that has attained viability" is murder, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter. Indiana Code 35-42-1-1, 35-42-1-3, 35-42-1-4.

Maryland: Under 2005 House Bill 398, amending Section 2-103 of the Annotated Code of Maryland, signed into law on May 26, 2005 and effective October 1, 2005, "A prosecution may be instituted for murder or manslaughter of a viable fetus," if the person prosecuted "intended to cause the death of the viable fetus, intended to cause serious physical injury to the viable fetus, or wantonly or recklessly disregarded the likelihood that the person's actions would cause the death of or serious physical injury to the viable fetus."
Massachusetts: The killing of an unborn child after viability is vehicular homicide. Commonwealth v. Cass, 467 N.E.2d 1324 (Mass. 1984). The killing of an unborn child after viability is involuntary manslaughter. Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 536 N.E.2d 571 (Mass. 1989).

Nevada: The killing of an "unborn quick child" is manslaughter. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.210 (1997.

Rhode Island: The killing of an "unborn quick child" is manslaughter. The statute defines "quick child" to mean a viable child. R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-23-5 (1994).

Tennessee: The killing of an unborn child after viability is first-degree murder, second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, vehicular homicide, and reckless homicide. Tenn. Code Ann. §39-13-201, 39-13-202, 39-13-210, 39-13-211, 39-13-213, 39-13-214, 39-13-215 (1997 & Supp. 199 cool .

Washington: The killing of an "unborn quick child" is manslaughter. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 9A.32.060(1)(b) (West Supp. 1999).

Conflicting Statutes

New York: Under New York statutory law, the killing of an "unborn child" after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy is homicide. N.Y. Pen. Law § 125.00 (McKinney 199 cool . But under a separate statutory provision, a "person" that is the victim of a homicide is statutorily defined as a "human being who has been born and is alive." N.Y. Pen. Law § 125.05 (McKinney 199 cool . See People v. Joseph, 130 Misc. 2d 377, 496 N.Y.S.2d 328 (County Court 1985); In re Gloria C., 124 Misc.2d 313, 476 N.Y.S.2d 991 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1984); People v. Vercelletto, 514 N.Y.S.2d 177 (Co. Ct. 1987)."

Also:

"Constitutional Challenges to
State Unborn Victims (Fetal Homicide) Laws

November 26, 2007

(All challenges were unsuccessful. All challenges were based at least in part on Roe v. Wade and/or denial of equal protection, unless otherwise noted.)

California

In People v. Davis [872 P.2d 591 (Cal. 1994)], the California Supreme Court upheld the legislature's addition of the phrase "or a fetus" to the state murder law in 1970, but held that the term "fetus" applies "beyond the embryonic stage of seven to eight weeks." (California Penal Code 187(a) says, "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.") In People v. Dennis [950 P.2d 1035 (Cal. 1994)], the California Supreme Court upheld inclusion of fetal homicide under Penal Code 190.2(3), which makes a defendant eligible for capital punishment if convicted of more than one murder.
Georgia

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit unanimously upheld the conviction of Richard James Smith, Sr., under Georgia's "feticide" statute. Smith argued that the law conflicted with Roe v. Wade, but the court rejected this assertion as "without merit." The court held: "The proposition that Smith relies upon in Roe v. Wade -- that an unborn child is not a "person" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment -- is simply immaterial in the present context to whether a state can prohibit the destruction of a fetus." Smith v. Newsome, 815 F.2d 1386 (11th Cir. 1987). Related state supreme court decision: Brinkley v. State, 322 S.E.2d 49 (Ga. 1984) (vagueness/due process challenge).

Illinois

U.S. ex rel. Ford v. Ahitow, 888 F.Supp. 909 (C.D.Ill. 1995), and lower court decision, People v. Ford, 581 N.E.2d 1189 (Ill.App. 4 Dist. 1991).

People v. Campos, 592 N.E.2d 85 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 1992). Subsequent history: appeal denied, 602 N.E.2d 460 (Ill. 1992), habeas corpus denied, 827 F.Supp. 1359 (N.D. Ill. 1993), affirmed, 37 F.3d 1501 (7th Cir. 1994), certiorari denied, 514 U.S. 1024 (1995).

Louisiana

Re double jeopardy -- State v. Smith, 676 So.2d 1068 (La. 1996), rehearing denied, 679 So.2d 380 (La. 1996).

Minnesota

State v. Merrill, 450 N.W.2d 318 (Minn. 1990), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 931 (1990).

Re establishment clause -- State v. Bauer, 471 N.W.2d 363 (Minn. App. 1991).

Missouri

In the 1989 case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (492 U.S. 490), the U.S. Supreme Court refused to invalidate a Missouri statute (Mo. Rev. Stat. 1.205.1) that declares that "the life of each human being begins at conception," that "unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being," and that all state laws "shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development, all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state," to the extent permitted by the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court rulings. A lower court had held that Missouri's law "impermissibl[y]" adopted "a theory of when life begins," but the Supreme Court nullified this ruling, and held that a state is free to enact laws that recognize unborn children, so long as the state does not include restrictions on abortion that Roe forbids.

In State v. Knapp, 843 S.W. 2nd (Mo. en banc) (1992), the Missouri Supreme Court held that the definition of "person" in this law is applicable to other statutes, including at least the state's involuntary manslaughter statute.

Pennsylvania

On December 27, 2006, in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Bullock (J-43-2006), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously rejected an array of constitutional challenges to the Crimes Against the Unborn Child Act, 18 Pa. C.S. Sec. 2601 et seq., including claims based on Roe v. Wade and equal protection doctrine. Although the law applies "from fertilization until birth," a convicted killer, Matthew Bullock, had argued that U.S. Supreme Court precedents allowed such a law to apply only after the point that the baby is "viable" (able to survive indefinitely outside of the womb). The Pennsylvania justices rejected this argument, stating that "to accept that a fetus is not biologically alive until it can survive outside of the womb would be illogical, as such a concept would define fetal life in terms that depend on external conditions, namely, the state of medical technology (which, of course, tends to improve over time). . . viability outside of the womb is immaterial to the question of whether the defendant's actions have caused a cessation of the biological life of the fetus . . ."

Also: On January 24, 2003, in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Corrine D. Wilcott, the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County rejected challenges asserting that the law is unconstitutionally vague, violates U.S. Supreme Court abortion cases, violates equal protection clause, and conflicts with state tort law on definition of "person."



Texas
In the case of Terence Chadwick Lawrence v. The State of Texas (No. PD-0236-07), issued November 21, 2007, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the state's highest appellate court in criminal cases) unanimously rejected a convicted murderer's claims that the 2003 Prenatal Protection Act was unconstitutional for various reasons, including inconsistency with Roe v. Wade. In its summary of the case, the court explained that after learning that a girlfriend, Antwonyia Smith, was pregnant with his child, defendant Lawrence "shot Smith three times with a shotgun, causing her death and the death of her four-to-six week old embryo." For this crime, Lawrence was convicted of the offense of "capital murder," defined in Texas law as causing the death of "more than one person . . during the same criminal transaction." The court said that the abortion-related rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court have "no application to a statute that prohibits a third party from causing the death of the woman's unborn child against her will." The court noted, "Indeed, we have found no case from any state supreme court or federal court that has struck down a statute prohibiting the murder of an unborn victim, and appellant [Lawrence] cites none."

Utah

State of Utah v. Roger Martin MacGuire. MacGuire was charged under the state criminal homicide law with killing his former wife and her unborn child. He argued that the law, which covered "the death of another human being, including an unborn child," was unconstitutional because the term "unborn child" was not defined. The Utah Supreme Court upheld the law as constitutional, holding that "the commonsense meaning of the term 'unborn child' is a human being at any stage of development in utero. . ." MacGuire was also charged under the state's aggravated murder statute, which applies a more severe penalty for a crime in which two or more "persons" are killed; the court ruled that this law was also properly applied to an unborn victim and was consistent with the U.S. Constitution. January 23, 2004.


Wisconsin

Re due process -- State v. Black, 526 N.W.2d 132 (Wis. 1994) (upholding earlier statute)."

I always call them on that whenthey use that argument of "It's not murder because the fetus isn't a person!"

...

So, if it was legally declared a person, you would then be supporting murder?

That's one of my dislikes, when an argument ignores reality to play with the definitions of words.

I thought that "baby" could be applied to any young human, and in other cases (like 'the "baby" of the family')? I just try to correct people who use terms like "infant" for unborn humans (or, the worst one was "unborn newborn" - that made me laugh).

That's silly:

Even the definition Google links to believes that baby is a perfectly fine word to use for unborn humans.

Anyway, when arguing about terminology ('it can't be "murder" because it's legal, it can't be a "baby" because it isn't born, it can't be a "person" because it isn't, it can't be "alive" because...I said so'), one loses sight of the actual points (the rights of the pregnant woman versus the rights of the unborn human).

I'm embarrassed that I used to do so. redface

Because the unborn human is living inside and off of her body. Which, I feel, it needs her permission to continue to do so. And thus she has the option to deny it this permission and demand its removal, in my opinion. Because there is no method that allows for immediate removal of the unborn human, before 23 weeks (I believe that was the earliest), the removal of the unborn human results in its death.

Thus, I believe, the right of the unborn human to bodily integrity doesn't give it the right to use the body of the pregnant woman without her permission. And, from my point of view, the unborn human's right to life doesn't protect it when the only methods to remove it from the body of the pregnant woman, at that stage, result in its death.

No, the right to kill another human that is living inside of their body. No other humans (other than pregnant women) have humans living inside and off of them. In any case where one human is living inside of another human, I feel that the "outer" human should have the right to deny use of their body to the "inner" human. It is only because there is no way to remove the unborn human without resulting in its death (before medical viability) that I feel it is with the pregnant woman's rights to kill the unborn human.

Yes, those sure are some of the reasons that individual women choose to get abortions. But I feel that abortion need be legal because of the right to bodily integrity. I never said that "bodily integrity" is the reason why women get abortion. I said it is the reason that abortion should be legal, until some other immediate option that doesn't kill the unborn human is available.

A similar case is: I feel that doctor/patient confidentiality should be legal (and required) because of the right to privacy. But the reason why patients want doctors to keep what they tell them confidential is because they are often embarrassed of the things they share with their doctor. Just because the individual reasons differ, doesn't mean that the right to privacy doesn't make the whole situation legal.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say? That some situations are legal because of certain rights, but that individuals in those situations have greatly differing reasons for wanting those situations to be legal.

[Edit] Also - I think that lessening some of the reasons why women would get abortions - especially financial reasons! - is also very important. I don't understand why we as a society don't have more help for pregnant women and parents of children who don't have (or don't feel they have) enough money to make ends meet. I think it's pretty horrible that people don't have more of a "safety net" available, so that they will abort simply because they don't have the money to afford a pregnancy/child they would otherwise keep and raise!

Though, I agree, if a women is willing to carry a pregnancy to term and give the resulting baby up for private adoption, there are some people willing to pay for the prenatal care.

So what gives the parents the right to bring the fetus into existence without its permission, forcing it to use the minimal force necessary to live? You could argue that they don't mean to bring it into existence, but the fetus doesn't mean to intrude on her bodily domain. If anyone here holds the burden of responsibility, it's the parents, not the fetus. Forcing someone to rely on your body and then killing that person for living is a right that no one else has.

Actually, a large portion don't use any birth control at all, but that shouldn't matter if it's about bodily integrity. If it's about bodily integrity, it shouldn't even matter if they're trying to get pregnant then change their minds, though that does happen.

Why should a fetus need a woman's permission to exist when she and her partner are the ones who caused it to come into existence without its permission? Why should she and her partner be able to kill a being without its permission when all it is doing is trying to live due to their actions? The fact is, sex isn't necessary for life. Elective abortion is a way to have sex without having babies, and that's the bottom line. One party is in that position through no fault of its own, one party is there through her actions combined with those of a partner. Now where does the burden of responsibility lie? Right now, the punishment is doled out to the one who had no choice whatsoever in the situation so that the people who actually caused the situation have an easier way out.