Out of the frying pan, into the womb of fire...

I think I know why I have stopped reading as much news as I used to when I worked in radio. Some things just agravate me. One such example would be an article I read about a new bill that will make it so people who attack pregnet women will be tried for 2 counts on behalf of the fetus. The Associated Press (AP) reports the bill states that an assailant who attacks a pregnant woman while committing a violent federal crime can be prosecuted for separate offenses against both the woman and her unborn child. The legislation defines an "unborn child" as a child in utero, which it says "means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." I like that idea, but what gets me is the hypocacy that surrounds this. You can read the article here if you want the whole story. I will offer clips and commentary.

"Pregnant women who have been harmed by violence, and their families, know that there are two victims - the mother and the unborn child - and both victims should be protected by federal law," the president said in a statement applauding congressional passage.

This is a stance that people don't chalange. But then you have the opposition: But abortion rights lawmakers contended that giving a fetus, from the point of conception, the same legal rights as its mother sets a precedent that could be used in future legal challenges to abortion rights. ...The key obstacle was an amendment by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that would have imposed the same tougher penalties for attacks on pregnant women as outlined in the DeWine bill but made no attempt to define the beginning of life.

When did this become an issue about when "life" begins? Do they feel that just becuase Congress says that life dosen't start untill 3 months or any other number of months that then thefacts of the matter will change? If Congress says life starts at 6 weeks in the womb, we can kill it at 5 weeks and 6 1/2 days. If they say 8 weeks we'll wait till 7 and 3/4. Either way, the same deed is done.

The Senate bill covers 68 federal crimes of violence, such as drug-related shootings, violence at an international airport, terrorist attacks, crimes on a military base and threats against a witness in a federal proceeding.

Now that's intersting. You can get 2 counts of a federal offence for threatening a pregent woman in court but get a paycheck for acting on it and destroying the child in a doctor's office.

That brings me to the part that caught my eye the most: It would specifically exclude prosecution of legally performed abortions - a fact supporters cite in arguing that the bill would not undermine the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision affirming a woman's right to end a pregnancy. "The criminals who commit these crimes are not committing abortions," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee. "They are depriving these unborn children of the right to life. It's a separate issue related to the right to life."

There you have it. A child in the womb has the right to put you in jail for trying to harm him, unless you are the doctor or the mom. If Mom pays the cash, than according to Johnson, it's A-ok to kill. If they are commiting abortion, it is not a problem. If it is a "crime", we have a problem. It's the same kind of woman that would seek an abortion that would use her child as collateral to take full advantage of this bill.

"This would be the first time in federal law that an embryo or fetus is recognized as a separate and distinct person under the law, separate from the woman," said NARAL president Kate Michelman.

Heaven forbid! We can remove a child like a cancer, but can't think of them as a seperate being untill it breathes air. That having been said, I step off my soapbox and pass the mic on to the next man.