Continued . . .
A. Courts recognize the humanity of the fetus.
[to be continued . . .]
(1) As for the notion that the child must have been viable when the injuries were received, which has claimed the attention of several of the states, we regard it as having little to do with the basic right to recover, when the fetus is regarded as having existence as a separate creature from the moment of conception.
(SAME COURT, FURTHER OPINION, QUOTING FROM A NEW JERSEY DECISION.)
Medical authorities have long recognized that a child is in existence from the moment of conception, and not merely a part of its mother's body. Sinkler v. Kneale, 401 Penn. 276, 164, A. 2d 93, 1961 Illinois Appellate Court decision quoting a Pennsylvania decision
(2) PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN
The significance of these statutes, and of this body of law, is the recognition which they give to the legal existence of the unborn person. These concepts have been in our laws for many generations, on the legal status of the unborn person. It would indeed be a pernicious legal system which would, on the one hand, give to the unborn person the right to inherit property, to own property and recognize his status by requiring the public control over his life and death, as with all persons, and yet ABDICATE the protection of his life 'to the whim of his mother.' Dennis Horan, et al., "The Legal Case For The Unborn Child," Abortion and Social Justice, (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1972) p. 109.
[to be continued . . .]
