Friday, April 02, 2004

DID THEY KILL UNDVELOPED PROTOPLASM OR YOUR FUTURE PAL?

I don’t tend to like legislation that is born from the headlines. Hardly is a random case a good microcosm of wide spread social problems. The school shootings are a good example of how the media tries to make local isolated incidents into a national crisis in order to push an agenda. It should be no surprise that the storied Laci Peterson case would inspire another federal law.

How often do courts ignore babies in these kinds of double murders? Whether this was a big problem that demanded a Federal law, I don’t know. It may have been just a few isolated cases, but neither the politicians nor the media spend any time discussing this part of it. Instead the opposition complains that it will change abortion law; back to the women with coat hangers in the alley speech. Feminists worry that any sort of fetus protection will remind judges and juries that these are people and not globs of mucus.

Now if politicians are cynical for designing more federal laws to remedy every tragedy, abortions rights advocates have to undermine their entire choice argument to oppose the idea of this protection. Of course, the argument, as they make it, has never been about personal liberty. They never use their voice to support any other kind of political choice. They want abortion as unrestricted as possible and will climb on the liberty wagon if it suits their goals.

In this case they aren't even talking about "states rights" as they have with homosexual marriage, they are out front saying that this will be a chink in Roe v. Wade. What they are really saying is that the baby and mother are at war. You can only protect one at the expense of the other.

If the ardent feminists really did care about “choice” they would be appalled that a baby that the mother was “choosing” to deliver was murdered. To oppose protecting a fetus, especially one as viable as Connor Peterson, is to say that the mother doesn’t have a choice at all. To them, the default action in pregnancy is termination. If the mother is very careful and doesn't piss anyone off, she might give birth to a new baby, but feminists won't lose any sleep if she doesn’t.

Why doesn’t the media ask the opponents of protecting the unborn how they can consistently support choice if they won’t protect the choice of these mothers? Why doesn't the media lay out the ineffectiveness or effectiveness of the current laws? Why must it be only another fight in the abortion war? -- because it is easier to cover the fight than the real issues.

No comments:

Post a Comment