Our legislators say such stupid things, you will really have to click here to read them all.
CHEYENNE — Anti-abortion organization representatives were among those testifying Monday in favor of legislation that would allow a person who murders a pregnant woman to be charged with two counts of homicide.
Doesn’t really sound all that complicated, does it? Well, you see, that’s the problem with abortion. We have to decide who can murder an unborn child and who can’t. This guy can. So can this guy. Currently, it appears that the pro-death camp are in favor of absolutely no rights for the unborn. Actually, they don’t even want unborn children to be called that. After all, it almost makes them sound human.
Rep. Mary Throne, D-Cheyenne, offered an amendment to remove all references to fetuses or unborn children. She said her amendment would guarantee the sponsor’s intentions of protecting pregnant women, but eliminate future legal dilemmas resulting from including the terms fetus and unborn child in statute.
It’s hard for me to fathom that kind of cold hearted stupidity — but one doesn’t have to look very far to find it.
Attorney Laurie Seidenberg told the committee she believes the bill would change Wyoming policy even without the amendment. “What you will be doing is elevating a fetus to the status of personhood,” Seidenberg said.
“Wyoming has never granted personhood to a fetus. If you do this, be aware that abortion, even in the first trimester, may now be considered a homicide,” Seidenberg said. “This may be the real agenda of the sponsors of this bill.”
Abortion, homicide, really now … is there a difference? The real agenda? How about justice for the unborn children still in the womb who are waiting to be born?
If it’s not a person, it’s not homicide. If it is homicide, that status doesn’t change on the person who commits the crime. 1) We aren’t in Nazi Germany and 2) there’s an Equal Protection issue with allowing certain men (i.e. abortionists) to kill babies but not allowing others (i.e. the fathers or random strangers).
I would actually be willing to use my legal education to fight for someone convicted under such a statute. I mean, if abortion is legal, why does the method of producing that abortion matter?
By: theobromophile on February 13, 2007
at 8:09 pm
When eggheads try to parse the definition of “personhood,” you need to watch your back.
If the issue weren’t so serious it would be comical to listen to their tortured reasoning that the unborn aren’t persons.
Some extreme libertarians have the guts to acknowledge that abortion kills an innocent human being, though they think the “rights” and “freedom” of the mother trump the need to protect the unborn. I think their reasoning is horribly flawed and that their priorities are out of order, but at least they are honest.
By: Neil on February 14, 2007
at 8:07 am
Agreed Neil. Cannot stand that retarded libertarian philosophy — but if they at least acknowledge they are allowing an innocent person to be murdered … well, still no good comes of it, but they are being honest.
I also agree that we need to watch our back when the party of death start trying to define personhood. Take poor Terri Schiavo for example. Bless her family’s hearts for trying to save her from the liberal mentality that she apparently no longer qualified as a “person” due to her disability most likely inflicted on her in the first place by her deranged freak of a husband / adulterer.
By: wytammic on February 14, 2007
at 9:29 am
I’ve never heard a good libertarian argument against abortion, especially at the early stages. I’m a die-hard libertarian, and it’s weird to “mandate” that women carry their babies to term when they don’t want to be pregnant.
I’m also a die-hard free market type, which is the philosophical part that saves it for me: the marketplace will devise solutions other than abortion so that women don’t have to be pregnant if they do not so wish. The ten zillion forms of birth control available today are the libertarian/free market answer to that.
Mostly, libertarian or not, I want a consistent philosophy, and allowing abortion (especially any time after the first heartbeat or brain wave) undermines all sorts of other parts of the law. How can you forbid people from forcing a miscarriage but allow abortion? If it’s all about the woman’s body, then the former is only an assault, with perhaps a tort – but will never be homicide.
By: theobromophile on February 15, 2007
at 2:25 am
For more information on this bill email info@prolifewyoming.com
By: Steven Ertelt on March 2, 2007
at 12:00 pm