Friday, February 22, 2008

Clumsy feminist attempt to address unborn victims of crime issue

A Bread n Roses regular Gigi attempted to address the fetal loss issue at a post at Scott's Diatribe.

I understand that women who have lost their fetuses to violence are upset - and possibly more distressed than those who simply miscarry of natural causes. The fact still remains that women miscarry, and until the fetus is a delivered baby, there are NO GUARANTEES.

Yes, women get attached to their fetus while in utero. Yes, they grieve their loss, but you cannot say, with 100% certainty, that this fetus would have become a baby.

So, the message to the families of those who lost an unborn child: yes, you're very upset, but it wasn't really a baby in any case, so your loss is and should be of no concern to the criminal justice system.

They are not getting it.

The pro-abortion opponents of the bill are not getting the fact that the fetus is considered of value in and of himself by most people.

They may or may not consider him a person.

They may or may not consider him a baby. (Although our criminal justice system recognizes him as a "child").

He is important.

It is completely irrelevant whether he would have been born or subsequently miscarried.

And even if people do not consider the fetus valuable in and of himself, people do get upset over what potentially deprived of them. For instance, suppose a person was unjustly deprived of a college education. "I know that you're really upset about being deprived of that spot, but there are no guarantees you would have graduated anyway."

Hardcore abortion supporters will never acknowledge the value of the fetus in and of itself. They are completely disconnected from the feelings of the majority.

Gigi asked:

Now what happens when you cause injury but not death to the fetus? Who can lay charges? Where does that line get drawn? Reckless endangerment? Surgeons nicking the baby while performing c-sections? Car accidents? Who is and isn’t included as perpetrators?

All those questions are plainly answered in the bill.

4) Every person who, directly or indirectly, causes injury to a child during birth or at any stage of development before birth while committing or attempting to commit an offence against the mother, who the person knows or ought to know is pregnant,

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 18 months.

In other words, injuring the child is sufficient to be prosecuted under this law--

but only if there is an attempt to commit an offense against the mother.

I repeat: the culprit has to commit a crime against the mother before he can be prosecuted under this law.

If he is not committing a crime against the mother, he will not be prosecuted under this bill.

So no, poorly performed c-sections aren't covered. Neither are abortions nor car accidents.

It's actually a very narrow law. That makes the opposition to this law all the more irrational.

It is intended to cover people who try to hurt the fetus through the mother, or who attempt to hurt the mother and in the process hurt the fetus.

It does not cover fetal injuries that are the product of pure accident or some non-criminal activity.

For more social conservative news check out