Marshae Jones is a 27 year old woman in Alabama. She was five months pregnant when she was shot in the belly by one Ebony Jemison; as a result of the gunshot, Jones miscarried. In Alabama, a fetus is legally protected as a human being with human rights, and so the killer has been brought up on manslaughter charges.

Here’s the thing: *Jones* has been brought up on charges. The woman who was shot, who lost her baby, has been charged (although it seems the charges have since been dropped).

The pro-abortion folks are obviously up in arms about this, screaming about how this is evidence that the laws in Alabama will oppress mothers who want to abort their children. But here’s the thing: the grand jury found that Jones initiated the fight, and that Jemison shot in self defense. Nobody in their right mind would hold someone liable if they truly shot an attacker in self defense. It’s just that the attacker in this case was pregnant, and the prosecutors have decided that Jones, who clearly knew she was pregnant, should have known better than to endanger her child in that fashion.

It’s something of a rare occurence, I would imagine.

But let’s say things were a bit different. Maybe the incident occurs nine months later, and instead of Jones being five months pregnant, she’s got a five-month-old baby strapped to her. And in that condition sh decides to attack another woman, the other woman pulls out a gun to defend herself, and the shot hits and kills the baby. Would the mother still be legally responsible in that case? Is a baby real life plot armor that allows someone to attack someone else and use the kid as a bullet sponge and escape responsibility for the death of the kid? Would this be a way to expand abortion to, say, the 30th trimester? Strap your kid to your torso, attack someone and hope they fight back in a  fashion that takes out the kid but leaves you un- or minimally-harmed? Does a pregnant woman legally require a different standard of restraint from someone she’s attacking? You may, of course, shoot an attacker all you like. Nobody in their right mind would argue otherwise. But how about if one of your bullets goes astray, perhaps because your attacker is whacking you with a crowbar, and the bullet goes into a window three blocks away and kills a kid *there?* I would expect the law would come down on the attacker. but I equally imagine the *lawsuit* would come down on the defender for being negligent or careless or some such while they were being pummeled.

“Hmmm” all around.