Off the Record

what feminists want By Diogenes | August 14, 2009 5:49 PM

 A Vermont woman named Patricia Blair has suffered a tragedy: Her unborn twins were killed in an auto accident. Blair-- who survived, obviously-- thinks that the driver who caused the accident should be prosecuted for the death of her children. But you see the problem: If it's a crime to kill an unborn child, then abortion is a crime. But Roe v. Wade proclaimed that abortion cannot be a crime. So the legal system is stuck.

Some states have solved this problem by enacting fetal-homicide laws. If you kill an unborn child, the legal response depends upon the mother's perspective. If she wanted to bear the child, then you're a killer, liable to criminal prosecution. If she didn't want to bear the child, and you're properly licensed to do the killing, then you're engaged in a legitimate form of commerce, and deserve proper payment. (And if the mother was ambivalent? Not sure how that works out.)

In Vermont the law is more straightforward: an unborn child is not recognized as having any legal rights. Quoting Cheryl Hanna, a professor a the University of Vermont Law School, the Boston Herald explains that any change in the state law could imperil the legal status of abortion. 

"Having said that, the loss to Mrs. Blair is no less significant and real to her. It’s a shame that there’s not a very good way for the law to legitimately recognize the loss to her," Hanna said.

So if we begin with the feminist axiom that abortion must be legal, in order to protect the rights of women, then the rights of some women like Patricia Blair must be ignored. And if her unborn twins were both female, the feminist axiom didn't do much to protect their rights either. 

If you found this helpful, our bi-weekly Insights emails can notify you of key commentary items. Also, please support this apostolic work. Progress toward our February expenses ($12,066 to go): $17,000.00 $4,934.15 71% 29% Add Insights to your account. | Make a pledge or one-time donation.

It's Your Turn to Sound Off!

» To ensure well-meaning comments, only donors are allowed to Sound Off.
  If you're a donor, log in; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Sound Off! Comments

• Posted by: extremeCatholic - Aug. 15, 2009 6:31 PM ET USA

  Think of laws which hold harmless the death of an unborn child in circumstances which otherwise would be homicide if the child were born as a protective moat outside of fortress abortion which must be crossed eventually. Such laws are rightly feared by pro-aborts because it causes people who haven't been paying attention to look up and see the slippery slope that has been descended.

• Posted by: pandrewblake6380 - Aug. 15, 2009 10:00 AM ET USA

  Years ago someone - one of the Supreme Court Justices (?) - stated that Roe v Wade was on a collision course with itself. The collision has yet to happen, but your comment succintly states the dilemma as far as "rights" are concerned. Of course, from the point of view of elementary logic - not a feminist strong card - someone (an unborn human) or something cannot "be" and "not be" at the same time.