« File away for never again | Main | I smell bacon »
May 23, 2006
Abortion end run
"Fetal homicide" legislation, such as Leon Benoit hopes to pass in Canada, is classic cart-before-the-horse lawmaking — it's predicated on the idea that a fetus has the right not to be killed, which is precisely the opposite of reality. Jurisdictions that have such legislation and also allow abortion (that's 30-odd US states) permit a fetus to be killed by a medical doctor but not by anyone else. That's not necessarily wrong, but it's more or less akin to an extreme form of involuntary euthanasia, and that's hardly the sort of thing you'd expect Leon Benoit to support.
Of course, fetal homicide laws are just a means to an end — first and foremost, they are a tool of the pro-life movement. They know it; lawmakers know it; everybody knows it. Benoit can claim otherwise until he's blue in the face, and Campaign Life's Mary Ellen Douglas can continue to call people "paranoid" for thinking this has anything to do with abortion, while uncorking faux-conciliatory howlers like this:
I would think pro-abortion women would find this bill something they would absolutely want to bring forward because it relates to the mother and the fact that a mother has accepted this child in that sense.
But everyone will still know it's about abortion. Google "fetal homicide" and you get 68,800 hits. Exclude the word "abortion" and you get 9,630.
If this wasn't about abortion — if people like Benoit really just wanted to punish those who "kill" fetuses, and sod the abortion debate — then they'd use a term other than "homicide" to describe what they're trying to outlaw. It's deliberately inflammatory. They are trying to enshrine our grand national delusion about abortion in the Criminal Code, and they hope eventually to "resolve" that contradiction by affording fetuses full rights of person.
Morally that's where I stand too, but I recognize the hopeless impracticality of it. We could set term limits — that is, grant a fetus full rights of person after X number of weeks — but I think that's mainly an arbitrary measure designed to make people feel better about abortion. Worse, I think it legitimizes abortions carried out before X number of weeks.
Pro-lifers wouldn't want that, of course, but they'll accept it as a new means to the same end, which is joining the proud league of world nations that ban abortion outright. It's a comforting sort of activism, I guess — they know they'll never win, but they can safely sign a long-term lease on the clubhouse.
Posted by Chris Selley at May 23, 2006 10:04 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.tartcider.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/400
Comments
Benoit calims (and the article tacitly agrees) that pregnant women are at a higher risk of violence than other women. If true, and not just because women at age 18-38 are at hgher risk of violence than other women, but because pregancy is the exogenous variable, then it is a horrible observation. I agree with the (expressed) intent of the Bill: any group at higher risk may need greater protection (due to a legal activity - I am not too worried about greater protection for drug dealers...) - but I am not sure that a 'fetal homicide' provision is the way to do it.
I think we would get the same effect if a victim's pregnancy was explicitly considered as an aggravating factor in crimes of violence. This would be similar to how we consider hate crimes for instance, where higher penalties are imposed.
Posted by: DCardno at May 24, 2006 01:07 PM
Interesting post — and your archived posts to which you linked (which I don’t recall reading before) are even more interesting. A question: If I understand correctly, you consider abortion immoral but unavoidable. Hence, "a truly mature society ... would admit to itself that abortion is inevitable, necessary and ubiquitous" and "would resolve to live with the moral implications of the act." Mature it might be, but would it be beneficial? If we were self-consciously and unapologetically to recognize that in practicing abortion we are essentially doing what some earlier cultures did in practicing infanticide, would this candid admission jeopardize our commitment to other ethical stances that we base on our (illusory, or perhaps just inconsistent) "respect for human life"? In other words, might a bit of self-deception here be safer than to acknowledge, “Okay, fine, we’re indulging in a morally reprehensible practice here, but that’s just the way it’s going to be,” lest we embolden ourselves to take a similar attitude on other serious issues?
I don’t actually agree with the line of reasoning I’ve just suggested — honesty seems best regardless. It doesn’t sound like you’d agree with it either, but I’d be interested in your thoughts.
Posted by: Joel Kropf at May 24, 2006 04:40 PM