January 09, 2005
Followup to Have Miscarriage, Go to Jail
This is an interesting article, relevant to the article I previously talked about. Instead of mindlessly arguing against the bill, this short article, while not defending it, does give the reasoning behind it. Apparently the proposed bill is to prevent cases like this, where an unready mother gave birth and abandoned the child, leaving it to die (or possibly killing it herself).
That begs the question, what does that have to do with miscarriages, which are defined by the loss of a pregnancy before 20 weeks; not exactly the same as an abandoned newborn.
Of course, I mainly read Plastic for the responses, and as one poster pointed out, Cosgrove, the main proponent of the bill, is now clarifying his wording to apply only to stillborns, rather than miscarriages.
That is a rather important distinction; one can only hope that the bill will be stated clearly enough that it cannot be used for anything other than that proposed purpose.
Posted by becka at 10:53 AM | Comments (0)
January 08, 2005
Have Miscarriage, Go to Jail?
Democracy for Virginia: Legislative Sentry: HB1677 - Have Miscarriage, Go to Jail?
Oh. Dear. God. (Make that: Oh dear. God.) This article is in response to a proposed bill in Virginia that requires women to report miscarriages within twelve hours to "the proper law-enforcement agency" or risk prison time and a fine. Now, I'll be honest and say I don't know all of the details, and I don't live in Virginia, so some might say it's none of my business. But if it's possible in Virginia, where my grandmother and the vast majority of my extended family live, then it's possible anywhere.
What's next, honestly? I hate fear-mongering as a technique to rise people to action, so please understand that I am attempting to induce outrage, not fear. But seriously. Now, not only are there people who want to keep us from being allowed to terminate a pregnancy that is contained entirely within our own body, but suddenly even the very act of conception and the possible accidental termination thereof (which is more common than you think, corroborated also at this link) becomes someone else's business. Big Brother much?
Now I know no one (intelligent) really believes that every sperm is sacred and every egg must be fertilized. But how is that really different from what happens when a sperm and an egg meet and some cells begin to mutate? Are we going to begin awarding cancers and tumors the status of human beings?
As terrifying as the breach of privacy is, what's really the issue here is the precedent it sets. This takes one major step towards the establishment of a foetus as a human being which, as you may imagine, takes a step towards the confiscation of a woman's right to choose. You cannot choose to kill a human being. As for right now, you can still make choices about your body and what happens to it. And if, during the natural and healthy act of sex, an egg and a sperm meet up, and the woman in whose body it happens doesn't want to face nine months of puking and backaches and bloating, I think she should be allowed to make the choice to not go through that.
Now I don't pretend to think I have all the answers. I don't think in black and white. I don't know if there's a line we can draw where an unborn child crosses over to humanity. But I do know that a clump of cells that could not survive outside a woman's body is not a human being. And an unborn baby 8 months in the womb, mostly fully formed, and the chance to survive with medical help were it to be removed from its mother is.
Where that leaves us? I don't know. But I find it interesting that Republicans, who claim to want less government, are the very people who want the government snooping into my uterus, and if that's not The Man poking his nose into every nook and cranny, then I don't know what is. Funny that...
Posted by becka at 01:50 AM | Comments (0)