a political rant

[cellio]

The Republicans in Congress are trying to pass a bill (which Bush has said he will sign into law) giving "person" status to a fetus independent of its mother. They're using the Peterson case as justification. This is so wrong.

A fetus isn't a person (yet). Causing the death of a fetus is, in my opinion, a tort against the mother, not a crime against the state. And this idea creates a slippery slope that I suspect most anti-abortionists haven't thought through. If a fetus is a human with respect to crime, then what about other areas? Can the parents claim a tax deduction for a child in the year of conception, rather than waiting for birth? If a fetus' father dies or becomes disabled, is it entitled to Social-Security benefits independently of its mother? Shall a fetus be counted in the census? Is a fetus entitled to the protection of CYS (and, if so, are we to permit CYS to remove the "child" from an unhealthy environment)? If the answer to any of these is "no", how do you draw the line?

And does punishment under this new law change depending on the "age" of the fetus? For example, if the couple gets a little rough (consentually) during nocturnal activities, and later they discover that she'd been two weeks pregnant and miscarried as a result, has a crime been committed? Or are parents exempt from this law? Will people have to cultivate willful ignorance? ("Gee, I didn't realize I was six months pregnant when I entered that vodka-guzzling contest.")

Take it a step farther. Suppose my hypothetical pregnant friend, not yet aware of her condition, comes to my house for dinner, and I prepare something that I know the friend can eat -- but it turns out to be toxic to the fetus. Have either or both of us committed involuntary manslaughter?

The reasonable man has a set of answers to these questions, but I am skeptical about the overlap between those answers and the implications of this law. We have already blurred the line between fetus and child (and about half the states have this particular offensive law); this seeks to completely remove that line without considering practicality.

To paraphrase a favorite saying of a friend, never make law where court precedence, informed by thoughtful humans, will suffice. We already have ways to deal with real crimes involving pregnant women; trying to fabricate a new one is nothing more than a political stunt -- and a dangerous one.

Sadly, I don't think any of my elected Congressmen gives a hoot.

Comments

[figmo.livejournal.com]

Rep. Zoe Lofgren from out here is trying to get an alternative bill passed which would, instead, make the unlawful termination of a pregnancy a crime.

IMHO Lofgren is on the right track.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

*sigh* I hear you.

A.

[alice-curiouser.livejournal.com]

I agreed with you to begin with, but those are very good arguments.