Anti-abortion proponents either don’t get it, or they just love to see what they can get away with by chipping away at a fundamental liberty, new law by new law. Their ultimate goal, of course, is to make every abortion a crime, regardless of the circumstances.
Some religious oriented politicians would even punish unintended miscarriages resulting from “bad” behavior. If God intended it, well, that’s OK, they reason, but if a pregnant woman intends it; they’re going to find some way to make that a felony.
Only if she prays to God for a miscarriage and God answers her prayer with a spontaneous miscarriage, I suppose, should she avoid the wrath of the criminal law, if anti-abortionists have their way. They want the law to decree what they think God wants. Their position is grounded entirely upon religious ideology.
"We are a multicultural society now and cultures are bringing their traditions to America that really defy the values of America, including cultures that value males over females," declared one of the anti-abortion lawmakers, a fervent “culture collective” absolutist.
And, just how, you might ask, will the Arizona State Pregnant Police find out the reason in a pregnant woman’s mind to seek an abortion? That’s right; the law actually purports to require every woman to state publicly her reason. The state can bring criminal proceedings to force her to talk. The state can convene a full blown grand jury investigation.
Thus, with the stroke of a state governor’s pen, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States of America Arizona
If the anti-liberty folks can’t have their way in wiping out the liberty right completely, and immediately, they’re perfectly content to pass one unconstitutional law after another in a grand effort to put their metaphorical foot squarely inside the American cultural door.
Perhaps one day not so far off, they’ll find a majority of religious oriented judges on the SCOTUS who essentially believe as they do. Maybe someday the bible will trump the United States Constitution.
That will be a sad day in America
I've said it before, that the solution to the whole abortion debate is 'eviction' (see the published works of Walter Block). If the abortion argument is changed from ending the pregnancy AND killing the baby, to simply ending the pregnancy, then the religious nuts will have nothing credible to complain about. If a woman no longer wants to be pregnant, then you remove, 'evict', the child. You do not harm the child in the process of removal. Once removed, the woman walks away. If the baby dies because it is too young to survive, then so be it. If it lives, then it has a right to its life the same as you and I.
ReplyDeleteKeeping these babies alive would be expensive, but with all the anti-abortion people in this country, there should be plenty of donations to fund this work. If somebody, anybody, wants the child, then they can adopt it. There are plenty of people in this country that want to adopt babies. The child lives, the woman is no longer pregnant and does not have a child she doesn't want.
This eviction idea is in complete agreement with existing property law. If somebody is trespassing on your property without your permission, you can legally evict them. If their only crime is trespassing, for whatever reason, you have to allow them to leave. You don't have the right to kill them simply because they are trespassing.
Removing a fetus from a uterus, either for abortion or for eviction, is still as invasive to a woman. If we remove the killing part of the process (i.e., eviction), then you remove the logical arguments against it.
Be careful what you wish for. An eviction is a legal proceeding requiring notice, court hearing, and representation of the fetus by an attorney. That's exactly what the religious anti-abortionists want – personhood for a fetus. No court of law in America is going to sign an order to evict a fetus from the womb.
ReplyDelete"Eviction" is just a word used to contrast a position that is different from the word "abortion".
ReplyDeleteThe premise of self-ownership has not changed. The only difference is the recognition that a human fetus has the same self-ownership rights as an adult woman. A woman has no more obligation to support a fetus in her womb than a property owner has to a trespasser, but a property owner cannot legally kill a trespasser simply for trespassing. I think the same relationship applies between a pregnant woman and a fetus.
It is not a perfect analogy, but it is adequate.