You and I agree. All I'm suggesting is that the definition of a 'viable' fetus for murder cases should be the same as for an abortion. (Could Congress pass a law that compels states to match murder/abortion viability definitions in lieu of a Federal abortion law? If so, would any state then redefine, for murder cases, viability as only after birth - I wouldn't think so) Which, from the few states I've actually looked up online, would put it around 20-24 weeks. The Far Left 'kill 'em all whenever you like' won't change their vote. The Far Right 'life begins at inception and all abortions should be illegal' won't change their vote. But, I believe enough people in the middle who may vote D this time because of R's stance on abortion would be reassured that all abortions wouldn't be illegal with a 20-24 week limit (as horrifying as it is for a lot of people to say that) and would then vote on other issues that the R's are stronger on. That would put the US slightly to the left (less restrictive) than all the European utopias so many on the Left idolize.
The inconsistency on abortion/murder viability definition befuddles me. Along the same lines, I don't understand individuals who are pro abortion and anti-capital punishment (or vice versa). It's a contradiction - you're either for killing that is approved by the state or you're not. People are contradictory but I have a hard time seeing anyone's reasoning for holding those contrasting positions simultaneously. As a result, I find it hard to comprehend how any politician could support a double murder charge when an unborn fetus is involved if the mother is allowed to abort that same fetus much later in pregnancy (health, etc., exceptions not involved) with no legal repercussions.
