Runaway Fetus

Written by Pete Petrisko
Published June 07, 2003

The cover story on this week's (9 June '03) cover of 'Newsweek' read: "Should A Fetus Have Rights?"

So, I thought to myself, "Should they?"

I figured I'd first ask a fetus its opinion, but I couldn't... because it's a goddamn fetus!

To quote from 'Newsweek':

"For decades, abortion opponents have offered moral and ethical arguments about protecting the fetus. Now they're building a legal case, defining the fetus - and even the embryo - as an individual entitled to basic human rights...

..."If they are able to make fetuses people in law with the same standing as women and men, then Roe will be moot," says Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt.

... Now 28 states have fetal-homicide laws on the books. In many states, the laws take effect only after a fetus is able to live outside the uterus, around 24 weeks. But 14 states cover a developing child from the moment an embryo is implanted in a woman's uterus -well within the legal time frame for an abortion..." (end quote)

What is this country coming to if, sooner rather than later, a fetus will have as many - or more - rights than the woman carrying it?

Why don't we just give fetuses the right to vote? Or lower the drinking age so fetuses can get liquored up?

No, if fetuses want equal rights, they should have to get them the same way women and blacks did.

Organize and march, baby.

Or maybe that should be "potential baby."

And maybe those last two sentences encapsulate the crux of the issue right there.

Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
Runaway Fetus
Published: June 07, 2003
Type:
Section: Culture
Writer: Pete Petrisko
Pete Petrisko's BC Writer page
Pete Petrisko's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Pete Petrisko
All Culture Articles
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — June 7, 2003 @ 13:59PM — Rodney Welch [URL]

What I wonder, every time this issue comes up, is why people can't learn to use birth control. I guess you could say that's beside the point, and granted, it doesn't answer the issue of rape or incest, but I think sooner or later we have to start addressing the real issue: not whether a fetus has rights, but why so many perfectly stupid people keep creating them when means of prevention are out there for everyone. Tell me, outside of the instances mentioned above, does there remain a good reason for having an unwanted pregnancy? I used to have a friend who worked for Department of Social Services -- she said they try giving away birth control pills and devices; unfortunately, a lot of the would-be recipients claim they "give me a headache."

#2 — June 7, 2003 @ 17:53PM — Phillip Winn [URL]

Wow, I'm glad I'm not old. Or mute. Or handicapped in any way. I'd hate to be told I don't have any rights whatsoever since I'm not capable of marching and demanding them on my own. Fortunately I'm none of those, so sure, I agree. Let's establish a test for the right-to-life: Any person that can survive 72 hours with no help of any kind from anybody else has rights, and any that can't, well, don't. :)

P.S. Obviously this is a complicated issue, and one full of strong emotions for lots of people. I don't mean to be incendiary, just to point out that oversimplifications like Peter's serve no purpose except to inflame.

#3 — June 7, 2003 @ 18:01PM — Planned Parenthood Volunteer [URL]

Rodney:Many of the protesters at PP Houston are also opposed to birth control and do not want women to have access to it.

The flat-out scare tactic of requiring providers to tell clients that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer (there isn't one) is a gross distortion of the facts. There is a regular protester in Houston who stands on the streetcorner outside the clinic and shouts to hispanic-looking women (in Spanish) that Planned Parenthood is going to rape anyone who goes in. He is just as disingenuous, but women are not required by law to listen to his lies.

It's hard to believe anyone takes the breast cancer claim seriously because it's the primary reason given by Houston's most-whacked abortion protester and author.

#4 — June 8, 2003 @ 04:27AM — Al Barger [URL]

So we have the right to murder babies up till they learn to talk? A typical year old baby ain't doing much political organizing or speechifying. Plus she's annoying us with all that crying and pooping in diapers. You know what has to be done...

No, if fetuses want equal rights, they should have to get them the same way women and blacks did.

Organize and march, baby.

Or maybe that should be "potential baby."


What the hell's wrong with you anyway? I'm not real thrilled with giving the government authority in such deeply personal matters, but aren't you bothered at all by the killing of millions of little babies every year?

Perhaps THIS is what the poor, hated fetus might would say by way of apology.

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/5991)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments