“I
love movies”. A statement everyone says, or almost everyone. Is
it true? No one loves all movies, or music, or art. They love
movies they find enjoyable. I don't think there's a person alive who
loves every movie and, conversely, dislikes every movie. It goes
without saying “I love movies” is not accurate. “I love movies
that appeal to me” makes more sense. Love is constantly professed
to films and no one gives it a thought. Why? They're trivial.
Nothing useful will be gleaned from picking this statement apart
because no one cares and that's how it should be.
It
gets interesting when we get into the non-trivial. “I want small
government”. Another statement we all hear on a regular basis.
Not trivial and not true. If you're on food stamps do you want small
government? Social Security and Medicare? Desire the world's
strongest military? World's best schools? Desire certain goods or
services banned for whatever reason? No one wants small government.
“I want small government regarding the parts of government for
which I don't understand or agree” is more like it. They want very
big government concerning the parts they endorse.
“I
am pro-life”. Uttered constantly and definitely not trivial. Is
it true? We have to define it first. Does it mean anti-war?
Perhaps. Anti-death penalty? Maybe. Anti-gangland murders? Who
are we kidding? Those people are alive. We all know it means the
person is against abortion. We, as a society, have attached the
statement ”I am pro-life” to being against abortion. But not
just any old abortion. It definitely does not mean “I'm against
abortion personally, but if you're for it that's okay”. That's the
definition of pro-choice. It means ”I am against abortion
personally, therefore, the government should punish those who have
one”. That's the definition. It also defines arrogance but that's
another story.
I
went on a pro-life website—also known as an outlaw abortion
website—and wrote “If you are against abortion, that's fine. But
you have no right to prohibit others from having one”. Fighting
words in this environment. I was merely fishing for a response
without too much bloodshed. What I received taught me a lot: ”You
have the same mindset as Southern slave owners; if you don't want a
slave, fine. But you have no right to keep me from having one”.
Wow. This is the angle. Fertilized eggs are equated to slaves,
which I presume are equated to non-slaves with civil rights. Okay, I
get it. This helps to explain the other phrase I hear: “A
fertilized egg has the same rights as any living (born) person”.
Simple, to the point, and horrifying how people just let it lay
there. It's so loaded with three huge topics which must fit together
in perfect harmony for it to be true that I cannot understand why I
haven't seen this thing dissected long ago. Or maybe it was and I
missed it. Possible. Either way, I doubt my treatment will be
redundant. Here's my attempt to break this whole thing down.
Can
a person who is born (I'll call a 'living person') choose to
drink alcohol? Yes. Can a living person choose to use nicotine
or pharmaceutical drugs? Of course. Therefore, a pregnant woman,
also known as a living person, can choose to ingest all these drugs as well.
Whatever she consumes, the fertilized egg/zygote/fetus (I'll call a
'fetus') also consumes. Never, however, is there a choice for the
fetus. “Mommy's had a tough day; it's time for you to consume your
Merlot. Your Marlboros. Your Valium. Eat it and don't make
trouble”. Living people have choices and the fetus has none; it is
force-fed every day.
This
seems terribly unfair to the fetus. It's supposed to have the same
rights as the living but has no way to stop being pumped full of
barbiturates and amphetamines. Let's try this: Can we make it
illegal for a pregnant woman to use alcohol, nicotine or
pharmaceutical drugs (I'll use the term 'drugs')? Let's say we can.
From now on pregnant women no longer have the right to ingest any
drugs that could affect the fetus. That seems fair.
Has
this given the fetus the same rights as a living person? Well, we've just created two
distinct classes of people; pregnant women is one class, non-pregnant
people is the other. And if “A fertilized egg has the same rights
as living people” is true, which living people are we talking
about, the pregnant or the non-pregnant? Let's examine.
Does
a fetus have the same rights as a non-pregnant person? The
non-pregnant person has the right to use or not use drugs. The fetus
does not. Two different rights. Not equal. That was easy. Let's
try pregnant women. Pregnant women no longer have the right to use
drugs. Drinking wine while with child is now a crime. This is
perfect, the pregnant woman has had rights taken away by the
government to equate her to the fetus. Both have absolutely no
choice. Like mother like fetus. In this circumstance I can
comfortably say a fetus is equal to a pregnant woman and not equal to
a non-pregnant person. This is making sense now.
To
make a fetus equal to a living person, we have to create two classes
of people: one class has a choice, the other does not. More
specifically, when a woman becomes pregnant she essentially becomes a
ward of government during fetal development. New laws just for her
are created in order to make her fetus equal to a living person, in
this case a pregnant living person, not the non-pregnant.
So
it turns out “A fertilized egg has the same rights as living
people” is true as long as the government takes rights away from
pregnant women.
“Wait
a second”, I hear people saying. “Fetuses have the same right to
life as any living person. That's the issue”.
Okay.
Are we now removing the law that states pregnant women are not
allowed to use drugs?
“Yes,
stop this ridiculousness. The fetus has a right to live just like
you and me and that's that”.
So
we're changing “Fetuses have the same rights as living people” to
“Fetuses have the same right to live as living people”.
All other rights are removed. The fetus has the right to live only.
Nothing else. The pregnant woman, having all the rights as anyone
else, can do whatever she pleases. It's open season in the womb.
Absolutely no barriers whatsoever to what can infiltrate, medicate,
injure, nothing. No restrictions at all. As long as the fetus
lives.
“You're
exaggerating...”
I'll
accept that. As I'm sure you'll accept this: what is possible and
legal to occur, not what is likely, is the issue.
We're
left with two choices and only two choices for those who subscribe to
“Fetuses have the same right to live as living people”:
-Leave
pregnant women unregulated, which allows them to do whatever they
want as long as the fetus lives. Or:
-Have
the government remove rights from pregnant women.
If
you choose the former you show disdain for the health and well-being
of the fetus. What it must endure for nine months is absolutely
unimportant to you. Quality of life is irrelevant. As long as it
lives your job is done. (Of course, if it lives it is by choice of
the mother. If it is not her choice it is compelled by the
government. If it is compelled by the government this choice
coalesces
with
the latter choice):
You
want pregnant women to fall under government supervision and be
considered a different class of people from non-pregnant folks. They
must be monitored closely by the state during gestation to assure
they don't do anything... “unladylike”.
“Fetuses
have the same right to live as living people” is very easy to say
if you're ”pro-life”. And it's very untrue. So let's stop
saying “living people” as if it includes all people. Stated
correctly:
“Fetuses
have the right to live if and only if government takes rights away
from pregnant women”.
Now
that I read this, it goes without saying. But it had to be said.
This is a very excellent post.
ReplyDeleteI hope you write more.
Governments take rights away from it's citizens all the time. It's basically the definition of a government to grant/renounce rights of citizens.
ReplyDeleteAs a not so obvious but obvious example, people in the single class have the right to marry, but people in the married class have that right taken away when they get married and introduced again when that marriage status is removed.
Lets take your logical train of thought a bit further and say that
"Children have the right to live if and only if government takes rights away from parents to ensure their child's well-being".
This is something that government already says, parents are imprisoned if they endanger the life of their child. And why shouldn't they? It's obvious that children are separate living beings and deserve the right to life even though they are dependent on their parents. What doesn't seem obvious is that fetuses are also separate living beings that are dependent on their mother. But science indicates this is the case.
That is why it the statement
"Children (including those in the womb) have the right to live if and only if government takes some rights away from the parent(s)"
isn't really that much of a terrible thing to say.
Parents are not imprisoned if they endanger a child's life, they are imprisoned if they actively abuse/assault their children. If they endanger the life, the child is simply taken away by the state.
DeleteSo, by that logic, if I accidentally get pregnant and do not want the child DSS should come and take it away from me.
Just so I'm clear, Mike, you agree with the article, you just feel the need to justify it. You would therefore, no doubt, feel comfortable addressing a group of pregnant women and stating this position. Thanks for the reply.
DeleteYou are correct that if someone does not have a choice, they therefore have no rights. If I hold down a child or even an adult that is physically smaller than me and pour alcohol down their throats, hit them, or rape them, I am taking away their right to choose not to drink, to be abused, or to be raped. So a fetus does not have the right to choose what food it eats, whether it is hurt, or even killed.
ReplyDeleteThe point is though, that taking away someones rights is wrong, and in most cases illegal. All people should have the right to live, to not be killed or harmed by others. A person's rights should not be dependent on their ability to physically defend themselves. The fact that a fetus is physically incapable of protecting itself does not mean that it should have its rights taken away. In the same way that a small child cannot protect itself from its parent if the parent decides to hurt or kill it.
And the women's rights? What of them? Why are her rights less important to protect than that of the fetus?
DeleteHi Lindsey. You appear to be wrestling with a contradiction. You said:
Delete"The fact that a fetus is physically incapable of protecting itself does not mean that it should have its rights taken away".
What the article shows is in order to preserve the rights of the fetus--the right not to drink and smoke--you must, and I underline must, through governmental legislation, take the right to drink and smoke from the woman carrying that fetus to assure she will not violate the rights of the fetus by drinking and smoking. There is absolutely no gray area here.
This directly contradicts your other statement:
"The point is though, that taking away someones rights is wrong, and in most cases illegal".
It is impossible for these two statements to coexist. Do you understand this concept?
Put a different way, a baby which has been born can physically grab a glass of juice and drink it while its mother is 5000 miles away drinking whiskey. A fetus cannot make this choice. Do you see the difference? One independently makes choice after choice, the other cannot.
Now based on what you wrote, Lindsey, you would have absolutely no problem whatsoever addressing a group of pregnant women and telling them they deserve to be punished by the government if they drink wine or smoke cigarettes. Because, you see, "The fact that a fetus is physically incapable of protecting itself does not mean that it should have its rights taken away". Your words.
You are left with two choices: walk back your statements, or explain why pregnant women must have less governmental rights than non-pregnant people.
We're counting on you to make the right choice. Thanks for the reply.
I would have no problem addressing that group of pregnant women and telling them just that. Here's why -
ReplyDeleteYes, being required to protect and care for her unborn child does infringe on a woman's rights. Her right to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, relax in a hot tub, etc.
So we have two people whose rights are coming into conflict. The baby's right to be cared for and not harmed, and the woman's rights to do whatever she pleases with her own body.
And obviously this is the essence of the abortion debate. The pro-life group believes that the baby's right to live and not be killed or harmed outweighs the woman's right to have fun.
So if, as a woman, I choose to take the chance of becoming pregnant by having sex, I am acknowledging that if I should become pregnant, I will give up my rights to drink, smoke, etc for the sake of protecting my baby. If I choose to keep the baby after it's born, I am giving up similar rights also for the good of the child.
Here's the thing - it's not good for your children if all you do is feed them cheetos all day. At some point you might be reported and it could be considered child abuse. But a normal parent who lets their kid eat some cheetos, even though they aren't good for them, will not be doing anything illegal. So a pregnant woman who smokes a cigarette or two should not be doing anything illegal. But a woman who drinks heavily throughout her pregnancy is another story.
Yes, but if I drive a car I am taking a chance I will have a wreck and get injured. Does that mean I have agreed to allow myself to be injured?
DeleteJust because a women has sex does not mean she wants to be pregnant at that time, she has not agreed to give up her rights to her own body, and saying to her, "well if you didn't want to be pregnant you shouldn't have had sex" is just as silly as saying "if you didn't want to be in a car wreck you shouldn't have drove"
I'm not going to keep restating the article to make it more understandable, but let me just say this:
DeleteI think I made it clear we are not talking about born babies. After birth, the mother can shoot heroin every day and the baby won't feel a thing. Please, do not bring up breast feeding--she can buy formula. This is exclusively an in utero issue. If you don't see this fundamental point I can't help you.
Again, I have to use your own words:
"The pro-life group believes that the baby's right to live and not be killed or harmed outweighs the woman's right to have fun" is not the issue. It must be restated:
"The pro-life group believes that the baby's right to live and not be killed or harmed outweighs the pregnant woman's right to have the same governmental guarantees enjoyed by any non-pregnant person". As I wrote before, this makes pregnant women a different class of people than non-pregnant people. Complete with a new set of laws and supervised by the government. This is what you believe and advocate for. And it opens a gigantic can of worms that, apparently, pro-life groups fail to see.
You, personally, could care less about these new laws. They won't affect you at all. But how many will they affect? How many in that group of pregnant women you just told deserve to be punished by the government if they drink wine or smoke cigarettes will be horrified by Lindsey's new batch of laws? Do you even care? Before you answer, imagine these pregnant women then assemble you and the entire pro-life community before them and state the following:
"Here's our new law for you: From now on it's illegal for you to spend your spare time on the internet writing blogs. Any free time you have must be spent at adoption agencies and orphanages helping all the unwanted kids who need love and support. That's our new law". How would you like that law? It doesn't matter how you like it, it's the law so you have to do it. Every last one of you. There is no choice in the matter. Government compels you. So what are you waiting for? That's right, there's actually no law to compel you to do this, so, I guess it's your choice to help these kids or not.
But there's no choice for the pregnant women; you've laid down the law and it's now illegal for them to drink. But it's okay for them to smoke, but only a few.
Have any enforcement ideas? You must. How can you sit back with laws on the books while pregnant women all across the country drown their fetuses in alcohol? You must have a plan to find these women and save their fetuses, right? You read my mind; we have to hire more police officers to keep an eye on these pregos. That'll do the trick. Wait a minute, these guys over here say they want smoking illegal but alcohol legal. And this guy says he wants it all illegal. Which is it, Lindsey? What are they looking for and how do they catch these dangerous women?
But just how many pregnant women would be angered by your new laws? Let's see, "The condom broke, I'm now carrying a fertilized egg, and the government won't let me do what that girl over there is doing". Yeah, I'm sure they'll be fine with it. "How do they know I'm carrying a fertilized egg anyway? Did they see my records? Maybe I just won't get a pregnancy test or go to the doctor so they won't know. I'll just say I'm getting fat".
Please, Lindsey, tell me you're getting the point. The worms are barely out of the can and it's already overwhelming. This issue must be thought through and your replies don't show you're doing that.
So, two choices... actually one choice: go visit an adoption agency. The kids would love to see you.