The Priority of Fetal Personhood

 From the diaries…

From the bowels of the absurd beast that is Slate came more complaining this past week about the “hardships” facing women in this great land. Of course, this was from the mouth of Amanda Marcotte, the one who barely takes a breath between her sputtering accusations of oppression. The piece entitled “Which State Was the Worst for Women this Week?” didn’t give me much hope that I’d discover any worthy argument among its paragraphs. I was right.

The main theme of the week’s awarding of the horrible dealt with abortion. Not the actual act itself, but restricting access to it or defining aspects of it in a different way. What continues to astound me, however, is the subject mentioned in the second paragraph of the article. This was the unbelievable disgust aimed at the push to establish fetal personhood. As has been said before, the bloodlust among abortion proponents is in the arena of obsession. It’s not that they have proven the science of conception wrong, it’s that abortion supporters have never been proven right. Science has never established that life only begins at birth, because it doesn’t, but you’d never guess that from their claims. They grasp for anything that might protect their mission, because it hangs tenuously.

A crowd that most likely supports the 56 gender designations (yes, fifty-six) which Facebook now offers is adamant that a single designation of “person” not be given to the unborn. More specifically, the pro-abort crowd is in uproar over a new bill just introduced in the Colorado legislature known as Senate Bill 15-268. The bill comes not long after the horrific attack on a pregnant Colorado woman, Michelle Wilkins, whose baby was violently cut from her womb. Michelle survived, but her baby girl died. Marcotte “awarded” Colorado her third place you’re-being-horrible-to-women prize, and claims the legislature “is exploiting a violent crime against a pregnant woman—one that resulted in her baby’s death—to justify a bill defining fertilized eggs as persons”. As reported here:

The latest proposal, introduced last week by Senate President Bill Cadman, includes an unborn child, at every stage of gestation from conception to live birth, as a “person” for the purposes of homicide and assault offenses.

However, it specifically says it does not apply to an act committed by the mother of her unborn child or a medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed medical professional at the request of a mother.

“This, in no way, infringes on abortion rights,” said Cadman.

The refusal to recognize the personhood of the unborn essentially boils down to discrimination. The location of an individual and their stage of development is the twisted criteria used to invalidate a life. Imagine if a similar criteria were used to measure the worth of us who are on this side of the womb? Why not make a case against those in a nursing home? They reside in an easily forgotten atmosphere, and their stage of development does not allow them to contribute to society in any way. Isn’t it easy to rationalize away someone’s worth to make a point? Those in opposition to Colorado’s new legislation clearly discriminate, for they know establishing fetal personhood is detrimental to their cause.

While a judge in New York recently determined that “chimpanzees are intelligent, emotionally complex and self-aware enough to merit some basic human rights”, the most basic of human rights – for actual humans – has yet to be established. Until we openly discuss the true personhood of the tiny lives inside the womb, we will remain a long way off from successfully combating abortion. Hopefully one day we as a society will look back at the horrors of abortion like we do the horrors of slavery, and wonder how it was ever accepted.