tsujigiri

The editorial comments of Chris and James, covering the news, science, religion, politics and culture.

"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." -Douglas Adams

Monday, December 09, 2002

Holy shit: Georgia is trying to give unborn fetuses the right to "trial by jury" before allowing abortions to occur. According to this article, a legislator wants to require women seeking abortions to get death warrants before they can proceed, and he wants the law to classify abortion as an execution. "A mother would have to argue why the child should die and why her rights would take priority over the rights of the child. Once a mother filed for a death warrant, a guardian would be appointed to protect the rights of the unborn child. That guardian would be authorized to demand a jury trial in which the rights of the unborn child would be balanced against the rights of the mother seeking to have the 'execution' performed."

''It's a constitutional protection that we all have that's not being adhered to when it comes to dealing with unborn children,'' Franklin said. ''The first thing we do as state representatives is take an oath of office to support the constitutions of the United States and the state of Georgia. Both ensure no person will be deprived of life or liberty without due process. We just want to make sure that's adhered to. Right now, the unborn child is losing his or her life without a trial.''
Call me crazy, but I thought the "due process" and "equal protection" clauses apply to citizens of the US, and citizenship is conferred upon all those born in the US. Obviously this would violate Roe v Wade (the whole woman's right to privacy thing rules out a public trial), and it probably won't pass in Georgia. I just can't figure out whether I should be surprised by it.

Soap Box: The claim that fetuses and infants have the same "inalienable rights" as adults is completely arbitrary. It can only rest on blatant assertion. That is not insufficient to justify intervention by the state. Any further argument for "rights of the unborn" can only be rooted in religious belief. The state cannot act on the basis of a belief which is strictly religious. There must be some compelling, secular reason for intervention. And for abortion, there is none. For homosexuality, there is none. For preventing divorce and controlling marriage, there is none. Why can't religious people be content to live according to their own moral codes, without having to demand obedience from the rest of us? I seem to recall the New Testament saying that believers should demonstrate the example of a holy life, and act through prayer and peaceful encouragement. Nowhere did I see Jesus say, "condemn the nonbelievers and act to control them through the force of law."

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home