"Cynthia Warner said her daughter, Heather was stabbed at least 47 times in her eighth month of pregnancy. Fliegelman's husband was convicted of her murder. He could have faced four additional years in jail for killing the family cats under Maine law, but he faced no extra charges for the death of the fetus, Warner said."
That is an excerpt from this article. This is a very interesting issue. Right to lifers say it protects the mother and unborn baby, and right to choicers claim it is a thinly veiled attempt to give rights to an unborn fetus. Why not make it a subjective test, if the woman wants the attacker to be charged doubly, once for her, and once for the unborn child, then the attacker should be charged charged doubly. Then the rights of the mother are protected, and her unborn child if the mother wishes. There are no rights created in the unborn fetus, (though I think there should be). That allows lifers and choicers to be happy.
From a constitutional standpoint, I can respect the rights of women who want to make a choice. However, when the law places greater punishment on those who would kill a cat as opposed to those who kill an unborn baby, our priorities are screwed up.
I think a person would be somewhat hypocritical to promote rights for animals but not rights for unborn children. I will concede it is not a perfect parallel. However, on a basic premise, is there a meaningful difference? We get completely bent out of shape as a society when someone kills a cat. Why not get the same upset when someone attacks an unborn child? I think this law is a step in the right direction.
No comments:
Post a Comment