Dr. Dawg argues that because if we cannot predict where fetal rights will end, we should not have any kind of fetal rights law.
As if any legislator has ever had to explain this.
Dr. Dawg assures us that the abortion war is over. Move on.
If this is the case, then there should be no apprehension about moves to protect the unborn? (Which he treats as a "what"-- as if a fetus is not a "who").
The problem with limit-cases like this is the appeal to raw emotion. Certainly, one feels, something should be done to prevent damage to what eventually will become a citizen. His or her future quality of life will doubtless be adversely affected by the woman's addiction. But from a public policy standpoint, where would state intervention end?
That's right. An innoncent baby has to suffer because of some precious right to abotion.
It's women versus babies, and the women-- the rational ones with the power and the judgement-- must win over the babies who are innocent and completely helpless.
Because women are always victims.
The unfairness of this position should be obvious.
Why should the baby suffer?
Because of some feminist power trip?
Because feminists are afraid that they won't be able to abort with abandon?
What kind of screwed up ideology values oneself-- as a rational adult with the ability to make alternative choices-- over the lives of helpless babies?
As already noted, though, it wasn't blind circumstance that brought us to our current situation. The Supreme Court struck down a damaging, humiliating, restrictive criminal law. Parliament, after three stout goes, decided to let the matter rest, although they could have pursued it further. Nearly half of all Canadians today don't want any legal restrictions on abortion. This doesn't sound, to me, like a favourable climate for making abortion a criminal matter once again.
Andrew Coyne makes the point that people do not know what the abortion situation is. They don't know that babies in the third trimester are aborted for minor malformations such as this baby:
As far as Dawg is concerned, it's perfectly okay for a doctor to take a syringe full of potassium chloride and stick it in the heart of a baby, causing a violent and painful death.
Partial birth abortion? No problem. Sucking babies' brains out is A-OK with Dawg. Don't need a law on that.
We have animal cruelty laws in this country. Nobody says "we shouldn't have animal cruelty laws-- where will the laws end-- people will end up in jail for feeding their dogs scraps!" Or something like that.
I'm about to get off this computer and go feed my infant daughter. She was born slightly immature. If she were still in my womb as of today, she'd have no rights. She would not be an unborn victim of crime if something happened to her.
In the womb: no rights, no protection, no recognition.
Out of the womb: Full legals rights.
Practically no one I speak to, save ideologically driven feminists, agrees with this position.
My daughter-- would be about 36 weeks in the womb (gestation), if she hadn't been born yet.
These pro-abort extremists think it's okay to stick potassium chloride in a baby like this. And yes, it does happen.
It's cruel and inhumane, and that's one reason, among many, why we need fetal rights laws.
For more social conservative news check out BigBlueWave.ca