[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

States don't get to redefine murder or decide not to punish it.

Actually they do it all the time. For example a number of states have defined murder as including the murder of a viable fetus. Prior to those laws such acts were legal. If they repeal these laws, such killings will again be legal.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Actually they are addressing the definition of "person" not "murder." Thus the question, "When does life begin?" The answer affects when and if murder (or homicide or manslaughter) is an appropriate charge. Even defined as murder, no one is asking to give it severe punishments equal to other murder (except for maybe the abortionist) in that it is not really done with the same malice.

People claiming to be pro-life hold the position that life begins at birth, therefore abortion is a homicide. While the emotional state of the woman may complicate her judgment, there is no such excuse for the doctor and the billion dollar industry making money off her situation and the baby's murder. Does the motive of greed make a homicide rise to the level of a murder? I'm pretty sure it does.

Thompson is not really pro-life in that sense. He is in that "moderate" place that sees it as only an issue of morals and if a life is taken well then so be it.

Terry Shiavo was a disabled person who was murdered.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Actually I am wrong in some cases, see Idaho. Even still, they are not fundamentally redefining murder, but rather expanding it to include fetuses. But their wording is different. Also I will cede that many states get away with not prosecuting those kinds of murders. The undeniable reason, however, is not that they are permitted to get by with murder but that unborn children are not recognized as persons. the end result is the same: They get by with murder.

Terry Shiavo was clearly a disabled human being and her parents were more than willing to take over guardianship of her from that adulterous slime of a husband.