Sunday, November 25, 2007

A Fetal Homicide Law: It's a Good Thing

The usual suspects are ranting against Ken Epp's excellent unborn victims of crime bill.

Has anyone ever noticed that in our society, when you are deprived of something important, our legal system makes the culprit accountable for that deprivation?

Women are the ones who bear and carry fetuses to term. You would think the feminists might have an interest in supporting an unborn victims of crime bill. After all, if a woman loses her fetus her loss is not acknowledged by society.

How is if a man is deprived of something that is his, our legal system makes the culprit accountable.

If a woman is deprived of her fetus, the culprit is not accountable for that loss.

The perpetrator of these crimes are usually (though certainly not always) men.

So men commit a crime and make women lose something of value that they cherish, but nobody is accountable for that loss.

Why, that looks very sexist.

The argument that assault charges adequately address the situation is not valid.

First of, a forced miscarriage is not always caused by an assault. It can be caused by a drunk driver, or something other miscreant. Secondly, the injury to the woman is separate from the loss of the child. Suffering bruises, broken bones or amputation is a far different thing than suffering the loss of a being whom you and your family looked forward to raising.

But see, feminists do not care if your loss is not legally acknowledged. In their heads, the fetus is of no consequence. In fact, Joyce Arthur wrote it herself: fetuses are not that important.

What do you expect from people whose values are radically different than the mainstream?

Even if I were not in favour of fetal rights, I would strongly support this legislation. I would strongly support the idea of society rendering criminals accountable for depriving me of my fetus, regardless of the moral status I attributed to him.

Feminists live in this fantasy that the woman and the fetus are one.

This may be the case in legal theory. But it's not a reality. When I get an ultrasound, the eyes, nose and mouth I am looking at are not my own.

Besides, legal theory makes allowances in the name of equity. For example, in our legal system, a child may sue the mother for injuries the child received as a fetus. The child benefits from a legal fiction that the fetus has rights for the greater good.

In the same way, our legal theory and our society is perfectly capable of making allowances so that the deprivation of a fetus can be considered a crime.

After all, we know that the reality is that the fetus and the mother are distinct, if not entirely separate. Eventually they do separate. Causing the mother and fetus to separate prematurely, leading to his latter's death, causing grief and costernation should definitively be its own crime.

The motive behind the opposition is the protection of the sacrosanct "right" to abortion. Apparently, being deprived of one reproductive right-- birth-- is not as serious as depriving of another reproductive right (so-called)-- "abortion".

They call for laws to protect that so-called right. But they do not call for laws to protect women's right to give birth to their fetus.

How "pro-choice" is that?

For more social conservative news check out