Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Murder stops a beating heart

The people of North Dakota have this crazy idea that nobody should have the right to stop an innocent human being's heartbeat.  That shouldn't be controversial, right?  Apparently, it is:
It’s now become the center of the national debate over abortion. Lawyers and activists see a new law passed there -- which would prohibit the procedure once a fetal heartbeat can be detected, as early as six weeks -- as a step toward toppling Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 decision legalizing a woman’s right to end her pregnancy.[...]

The North Dakota law makes it a felony for a doctor to perform a nonemergency abortion once a fetal heartbeat can be detected, as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, with no exceptions for victims of rape or incest. It’s the narrowest window of any state, prohibiting terminations some four months earlier than the current legal limit.

In Bismarck, the capital, lawmakers have been asked by Republican Governor Jack Dalrymple to set aside money to defend the measure, even as many, including Weisz and Nelson, predict a court will strike it down. Abortion-rights advocates plan to sue to block the law before it takes effect Aug. 1.[...]

 Forty years ago, the Roe v. Wade ruling said women have a right to privacy to terminate pregnancies up until a fetus is viable outside the womb, then considered to be about 26 weeks. Technological advancements have since reduced that limit to around 23 or 24 weeks. 

A ruling based on such a fluid marker is vulnerable, said Mathew Staver, who argued on behalf of clinic protesters before the Supreme Court in 1994. He’s the founder of Liberty Counsel, an Orlando, Florida-based Christian nonprofit specializing in anti-abortion litigation, which has offered free assistance to North Dakota and Arkansas, where lawmakers passed a 12-week ban last month.

“Viability is not a determination on the value of life or whether there is a life,” Staver said. “It’s only a reflection of the available medical technology.”

Instead, abortion rights should be attacked on the grounds that the beginning of life should be measured by the same standard used to determine when it ends: a heartbeat, he said. 

The truth is that those who favor abortion have never really cared much about embryonic or fetal life. In order for there to be Sex Without Consequences, there has to be a legal way for a woman to kill the child growing inside of her and dispose of the body before anybody can see.  Whether or not the human being killed has a heart beat, measurable brain waves, or other markers of life doesn't matter: so long as at least some part of the baby remains inside her mother's womb, her mother gets to kill her--at least, that has been the American position.

We're starting to see some erosion in that position, and I think that North Dakota is taking a step in the right direction.  If you stop the beating heart of an innocent human being, that's murder--and the human being's age or condition of dependency shouldn't matter.


vera said...

What about the near certainty that such a law, implementing it widely, would return us to the days of backalley butcher abortionists? That Gesnell creature featured previously show a preview of what would come -- except worse. Do you care?

vera said...

No response? Hm. Are you then one of those people who says, I want my laws my way, regardless of the consequences? I am not trying to be disrespectful... I've seen this a lot with drug war type laws and abortion too, and attitudes on both sides. My way or the highway, and t'heck with consequences.

Red Cardigan said...

Believe it or not, Vera, I have a life outside this blog. Which right now includes a second bout with a recurrent bladder infection.

Anyway, your objection is silly and has been answered millions of times before, which is why I didn't bother. We should make murder legal to avoid back-alley murders? Maybe we should have "safe theft," to permit bank robbers to steal money without any risk of guards or customers getting shot. Or we could have "safe rape" where rapists could commit their rapes in clean, well-lighted rooms with condoms available...

You get the point. To the child being killed, all abortion is unsafe--deadly, even. Women have always had other options, and today when unwed pregnancy isn't even really stigmatized anymore they have more options than ever. What the Gosnell case shows us is that a certain percentage of women will be killed even by "safe, legal" abortions--you can research this easily online to find women killed since Roe v. Wade, many of them in clinics that weren't even remotely like Gosnell's, some even in hospitals. But people tend to forget that abortion is always 100% fatal to the child, even if all abortions were done in a spa-like environment complete with soothing music and post-fetal-demise back massages for the mother of the dead child. Which is fine if you think unborn humans are disposable, and horrific if you don't.