Thursday, October 04, 2007

Unborn Victims of Crime: The Same Old Canard

"If she's doing something that somebody decides to be contrary to the fetus's interests, which could be eating too much sugar, exercising too hard, smoking or drinking, it's very dangerous to go down that route to say a woman is no longer a separate, independent person at a certain stage of pregnancy.

Then you write the law so that if the woman performs an activity without any intention to kill the fetus, she is not guilty. Simple!

How many people in the US have been charged for eating too much sugar? I'm ready to bet that the total is none.

"On the other hand, viewing this pregnant woman as two separate persons is potentially more dangerous than saying he can be prosecuted with the murder of the woman here, and that will be a sufficient punishment for what he has done."

Not punishment...justice. Justice for a member of a family. People care more about potentially being charged for eating too much sugar than the actuality of justice for a member of the family.

Canadian ethicist Margaret Somerville, who is also the founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University, said that if she could change current laws, Mr. Cocelli would also be facing charges in the murder of the unborn child.

"I'd change the law, not so much that I think these cases are frequent, I'd change it because we're being ostriches with our head in the sand, pretending that the baby doesn't exist," said Prof. Somerville.

"It's a separate question in terms of what we'll do in protecting it, where we'll draw the lines in terms of protection as opposed to a woman's right to what she wants to do. Not to draw any lines, which is the case at the moment, or to draw the lines pretending we're not dealing with a human life, warps our moral intuitions."

Translations: we're doing mental gymnastics to pretend the unborn child is not a human being. This is the Achilles Heel of the pro-abortion ideology. It is based on a lie and therefore many contradictions.

Advocates of the right to abortion, however, believe that by recognizing the fetus as a person, even only in cases where the mother had no control over her child, could result in anti-abortion legislation.

"The thing that we're concerned about is that issues like this can sometimes be used for political reasons and potentially be used to, in the end, restrict a woman's right to abortion," said Carolyn Egan of the Ontario Coalition of Abortion Clinics.

Yes, nothing much touch that sacrosanct right to abortion, even if it means families must suffer the loss of a member and the pain of not seeing justice rendered.

Ms. Egan said since Mr. Cocelli is already charged with killing his wife, she doesn't see much of a difference in the outcome of the case if he was charged with the unborn child's murder as well.

Yeah, well, gays had civil unions and there isn't a big difference with marriage, but they wanted marriage anyway. It's the principal.

"We do not feel this should necessitate a change in Canadian law and give the fetus the status of a person in this country, which would be much more detrimental."

You don't have to give the fetus a status of a person. They're not persons in the US.

Visit Opinions Canada
a political blogs aggregator