2014考研英語：閱讀理解高分強化訓(xùn)練(十三)_跨考網(wǎng)

　　2014考研英語：閱讀理解高分強化訓(xùn)練(十三)

　　Law and the society

　　法律與社會

　　Text

　　Does a live-born human infant is still a "fetus"?

　　On Tuesday evening, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act on a voice vote. This is a simple, three-paragraph bill that would codify, for federal law purposes, the traditional definition of "born alive." Specifically, under the bill, the terms "person," "human being," "child" and "individual," whenever they appear in federal laws or regulations, will be construed to include "every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive." The term "born alive" is then defined as "complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother," followed by a heartbeat, respiration, or movement of voluntary muscles.

　　This is the legal definition already incorporated in the laws of most states.

　　At 7:39 p.m. Tuesday, the Associated Press bureau in Washington sent out a dispatch that began, "The House voted Tuesday to define a fetus that is fully outside a woman's body as having been ‘born alive,' which would give the fetus full legal protection." The term "fetus" was employed repeatedly throughout the rest of the dispatch.

　　Quickly, I and at least one other reader pointed out to the AP editor on duty that "fetus" is not an appropriate or accurate term to apply to a human infant who is entirely born and alive. If an infant is born alive prematurely, then the proper term would be "premature infant" or "premature baby," not "fetus."

　　Sometimes induction of labor is used as a method of abortion, and sometimes this results in a live birth. This is sometimes referred to as a "live birth abortion." On occasion, other abortion methods also result in live births. But a premature infant is a premature infant-and a legally protected person-regardless of how he or she reached that state.

　　Regrettably, the AP did not correct its error. Instead AP editors compounded the original error by transmitting updates that contained this statement: "The legislation is aimed at an abortion procedure critics call ‘partial-birth' in which a fetus is partially delivered before being destroyed. Thirty states and the District of Columbia already have laws against the procedure."

　　In fact, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act does not restrict partial-birth abortion. In a partial-birth abortion, the fetus/baby is mostly delivered but the head remains in the womb while the skull is punctured-hence the name, PARTIAL-birth. The fetus/baby destroyed in a PARTIAL-birth abortion has not achieved the "complete extraction or expulsion from his or her mother" required to be "born alive" under H.R. 2175. Moreover, the laws that the AP refers to are laws that define "live birth," not laws restricting partial-birth abortion. According to the House Judiciary subcommittee that H.R. 2175 have codified the definition of "live birth" for their state-law purposes, and of these, 30 states and D.C. have codified definitions virtually identical to those contained in H.R. 2175. (D.C. has never enacted a restriction on partial-birth abortion.)