Today on Blogcritics
Home » A Victim’s Right To Choose

A Victim’s Right To Choose

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

This commentary was excerpted from Opinionjournal.com’s Friday edition of, The Best of The Web Today:

By a vote of 254-163, the House yesterday approved the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, under which attacking a pregnant woman counts as two separate assaults, one on her and one on her unborn child. Opponents argue that this somehow undermines the right to abortion:

Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., said it would be the first time in federal law that a fetus would be recognized as having the same rights as the born. The bill “is not about shielding pregnant women,” she said. “It is and has always been about undermining freedom of choice.”

The House, said Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, was “taking advantage of tragedy to promote the far-right agenda of trying to rob women of their right to choose.”

Nita Lowey and Kate Michelman, standing tall for a murderer’s right to choose. And in truth, they are the ones undermining the intellectual case for abortion rights. The pro-life argument has always been that abortion is murder; Lowey and Michelman’s view is that murder is abortion.

I think another interesting point to note which is not spelled out quite as well as I would like in the article is that the Unborn Victims of Violence Act supports choice rather than limits it. How so? Because this act helps protect women who have chosen to have a child. The problem then, that pro-abortion groups must have with this bill is that it supports the opposite choice of what NARAL and other groups would like to see women make.

I guess, for them, choice is only okay if its a choice for abortion. No big surprise there.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Powered by

About David

  • http://www.whiterose.org/michael/blog/ Michael Croft

    Hi, David,

    While it’s usually very easy to defeat your opponent’s positions when you decide what those positions are, it’s a reasonably masturbatory act. If it makes you feel good, or you’re bored, by all means, build up a few strawmen and then demolish them.

    I have to commend you on your recycling efforts for turning around and attempting to troll with it, too. I hope it turns out to be soothing for you all around.

  • http://www.viewpointjournal.com David Flanagan

    I hope it turns out to be soothing for you all around.

    Good news is always encouraging, don’t you think? And being able to strip away the thin veneer of those who are pro-abortion, NOT pro-choice as they so consistently proclaim, and showing them for what they are, is also a great thing.

    Thanks

    David

  • Eric Olsen

    David, I don’t think anyone sane is “pro-abortion.” The issue here is if you give a fetus the same legal rights as the born, then you undermine a woman’s right to “choose” whether or not to continue a pregnancy because then clearly abortion becomes murder. Abortion is as charged an issue as exists and many people of good faith truly believe it is murder, but, with limitations, society has stated that abortion is NOT the same thing as murder, that the rights of the woman, again within limitations, supercede that of the fetus, and that the practical needs of society are best met by allowing women to terminate, within limitations, an unwanted pregnancy.

    The legislation in question is quite obviously an attempt to reframe the debate.

  • http://www.viewpointjournal.com David Flanagan

    The issue here is if you give a fetus the same legal rights as the born, then you undermine a woman’s right to “choose” whether or not to continue a pregnancy because then clearly abortion becomes murder.

    But the point of the article, which is right on the mark in my opinion, is that if we DON’T give women the right to protect their unborn children, then then the murder of their unborn child is just abortion. Like it or not, while it does create an issue where unborn children are possibly being classified as, God forbid, human beings with some limited rights (as defined by their mothers), this DOES strengthen women’s rights overall as it strengthens penalties for the willfull termination of wanted pregnancies.

    David

  • Roland

    The key sentence is in David’s post above. The law would appear to grant a fetus some limited rights. I would argue that this is the principle reason why so many that oppose the practice of abortion are happy about this. While it is unlikely to me that this law could be used to challenge the legality of the procedure, it will provide momentum to others wishing to pass more thorough laws which directly challenge a woman’s right to have an abortion.

  • http://tructor.com Robert G

    US Rep Nita Lowey D-NY)pontificates that US Iraq position “suffers from poor intelligence”, when her Dem party spent the last 20 years detroying US Intelligence agencies. Pres. Clinton & his Justice Dept weakened US intel to the point that they are MORALLY responsible for 9/11. Rep Lowey should be ashamed of her testimony today at House Appropriations Ctte. It is blatantly obvious that all she & Rep David Obey care about is defeating President Bush, not protecting our troops or stabilizing Iraq. We are at war and their behavior, far from being honest criticism, is tantamount to treason.