Golf Claps for Hawaii

Hawaii’s Legislature is considering a bill that would make it a felony to kill an unborn fetus in an attack on the pregnant mother.  Hawaiians are outraged that Tyrone Vesperas, who killed his unborn child by stabbing his wife in the abdomen, cannot be charged under existing state law. 

Democratic representative John Mizuno, the sponsor of the bill, pointed out quite logically that it doesn’t make sense to punish animal cruelty, but not the willfull killing of an unborn child.

Sounds nice, but don’t get excited.  It’s only a crime to viciously kill an unborn child if the mother wants the baby.  Otherwise, who gives a damn?  Says Honolulu Prosecutor Peter Carlisle, “If somebody attacks a pregnant mother who wants to have the child [emph. added], and attacks with the intent to kill the fetus or recklessly kills the fetus, that should be a crime in Hawaii.”  Supporters of the bill will, of course, use all due care to craft the law in such a way that the mother herself (with the help of her physician accomplice) will still be free to murder her own unborn child.  To that end, the bill would not define the victim as a “person.”

Kelly Rosati, the executive director of the Hawaii Family Forum and spokeswoman for the Catholic Church, said: “We think the public would strongly agree that perpetrators should be held accountable for the life of that child.”  Gosh, Kelly, I hope you didn’t strain yourself making such a bold statement.  Remind me again: how does the Catholic Church feel about the perpetrators of abortion? 

A couple of problems here.

(1)  In the words of its own drafters and proponents, this bill is being offered to protect “unborn children.”  Isn’t a child a “person?”

(2)  This law, and similar ones in effect around the U.S., value the unborn child’s life entirely by whether or not the mother wishes to deliver a live baby.  Tell me, how does someone magically become a person because her mother wants her to be born, yet becomes a non-person if her mother does not want her to be born?  Is our humanity that malleable?  I’ve heard of evolution, but never the idea that a being can instantaneously transmutate at a moment’s notice based on the subjective desires of another. . .oh, I forgot!  Reality and science have no place in the legal fictions of abortion supporters.  Silly me.

Apparently, under this proposed law, if the attacker doesn’t want the unborn child to live, it’s criminal intent to kill a child—who somehow still refrains from being a person—and punishable under the law.  But if the mother doesn’t want the unborn child to live, it’s not even a person and her intent is above reproach. 

Let’s try a hypo under this logic:  Mary gets pregnant.  Until the middle of the second trimester, Mary wanted to have her baby.  She bought a crib, named her unborn baby Alicia, purchased clothing, and started a savings account for Alicia’s college.  A stranger shoots Mary in the stomach during a carjacking.  Mary lives and Alicia dies.  Under the proposed Hawaii law, the carjacker has committed a felony for killing an “unborn child” and the public cries out for the harshest sentence possible for such a cruel killing.

Now suppose that the carjacking never happened.  Instead, Mary decides during her second trimester to have an abortion because she can’t afford a baby and her new car, cell phone, Seven Jeans, and digital cable.  So she goes to the local abortion provider, who dismembers the Fetus Formerly Known As Alicia and removes the bloody pieces from Mary’s womb.  Under the proposed law, there’s no crime here because it was the mother who willfully and intentionally caused the death of the unborn child–oops, “biological material.”  Alicia’s change of heart has magically transformed Alicia into a non-entity.

Doesn’t that just make perfect sense?  If denial and creative rationalization were Olympic sports, abortion supporters would win more gold medals than Romanian gymnasts.  

(3)  This law would impose a duty of care upon strangers to the pregnancy–strangers who might not even know that the woman is pregnant.  If we’re going to impose a duty upon strangers to not intentionally or recklessly kill unborn fetuses, shouldn’t the duty of the child’s mother be higher

Let’s be honest here: none of this has anything to do with the value of unborn life.  The bill Hawaii lawmakers are so “bravely” proposing merely inserts the tort of emotional distress into the criminal code.  Disgusting. 

Advertisements

~ by lewdandlascivious on June 19, 2007.

10 Responses to “Golf Claps for Hawaii”

  1. AWESOME!!

    I remember debating feminist/pro-abortionist types on another site over this. They argued that the mother’s desire for the child transmutates it into a baby; they also argued that the “punishment” is directed at the harm to a woman who wanted her child and had her bodily integrity violated.

    I know this sounds messed up… but I would happily use my law degree to defend anyone convicted under this statute when abortion is still legal. Maybe then we could come to the logical impasse of Roe.

  2. Thanks!
    Yeah, I love the transmutation argument. Maybe if I decide that I don’t want to hear their BS anymore, they will transmutate into tiny dried up dog turds that I can sweep up and throw into the trash.

    They’re living in La-La Land.

  3. completely unrelated, but here:

    http://www.apple.com/trailers/miramax/eaglevsshark/trailer/

    http://www.panasianbiz.com/2007/06/chinese_dog_gives_birth_to_kit_1.html

  4. Hmmm. Random but interesting. 🙂
    I dunno about the movie–could go either way.
    As for the dog, I won’t believe it unless I see pictures of the actual birth! Miss Margaret is outraged by this abuse of nature!

  5. Well, Lewd, in the antebellum South, African-Americans could be transmutated into citizens. That was a human rights issue. This is completely different.

    Reminiscent of Calvin & Hobbes, isn’t it?

  6. That’s sarcasm again, isn’t it? I can’t tell with you!

  7. DAMN STRAIGHT it’s sarcasm. If it comes out of my mouth (or my fingers), and it relates to the liberal agenda, it’s probably sarcasm. If it’t not, it’s snark. 😉

    You know where I stand: abortion rights are our last civil rights battle. We’ve acknowledged that African-Americans are human, despite all the science that told us they were inferiour and more like apes; we’ve acknowledged that women are people, too, despite similar claims; yet, we can’t extrapolate from those diasters and grant human dignity and personhood to everyone. GRRRRRR.

  8. Ack, that should be “abortion” or “fetal rights.” Mea culpa!

  9. Amen, girl!

  10. Well said! The best way I can think to describe this is simply: Moral schizophrenia.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: