Before the Supreme Court of the United States overturned Roe vs. Wade earlier this month, Headland Police officer Robert Maddox was charged with murder for killing his unborn child by forcing his wife to undergo an involuntary abortion. Specifically, he was charged with domestic violence and strangulation back in April, but the charges were upped to murder after the government alleged that the assault was carried out for the purpose of forcing a miscarriage. This case could raise important legal questions regarding what rights if any an unborn baby has.
Alabama law defines the term "person" for the purpose of treating someone as the victim of a violent crime saying, "The term, when referring to the victim of a criminal homicide or assault, means a human being, including an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability." See Alabama Code Title 13A. Criminal Code 13A-6-1 (https://codes.findlaw.com/al/title-13a-criminal-code/al-code-sect-13a-6-1.html). One could conceivably use this definition to justify charging any woman with murder for getting an abortion at any stage of development regardless of viability. Basically, if you cause the death of an unborn fetus at any stage of development for any reason you have taken the life of a person according to the state of Alabama.
What if a woman decides to get an abortion after her first ultrasound reveals that the fetus has no head? Should she be forced to give birth to a headless baby incapable of surviving for any length of time because viability is irrelevant?
We wonder what some of the radical feminists we've been corresponding with online since the fake court overturned Roe vs. Wade would think of this case. Obviously it should always be a crime to force a woman to get an abortion against her will. That is worse than rape. Surely laws must be on the books to punish such a thing severely, but is using this definition of a "person" for the purpose of exposing men like Maddox to criminal liability for murder worth exposing her to the same liability should she not want to have another one of his kids?
UPDATE: We have realized that it might be possible for a headless fetus to be viable but only if surrendered to the military for cybernetic research. Ideally they could try giving it a fake head with a computer inside to control the body. Then when it gets older they can send it to war instead of normal kids.
In fact, one might want to consider amending the National Security Act to cover such things. They just need to say that such fetuses are vital to the national security of the United States and that any woman who kills her unborn child rather than turn it over be charged as a traitor for having waged war on the United States by killing a future American soldier. They might also want to consider amending the Militia Act to require that women of fighting age register for the Selective Service just like men. That way any women thinking of committing treason against the United States by aborting a potentially viable specimen could simply be conscripted and ordered not to. If she doesn't like it they can just throw her in the brig for conduct unbecoming and attempted destruction of government property.