I just wrote this for a Human Development class I'm taking:
"As of May 2007, there are 35 states that recognize unborn children in the context of violence committed against their pregnant mothers.
You may go here to view a photo of Zach Marciniak, who was killed in the 9th month of pregnancy, five days before his due date, when his dad physically abused his mother by repeatedly punching her in the stomach with the premeditated intent to kill their growing child. Zach died from blood loss due to blunt-force trauma.
Zach's dad was not charged with his murder however, because at that time in Wisconsin Zachary was not legally recognized as a human being. As Tracy, Zach's mom, cradled her full-term son in her arms at his funeral, the state contended no one died. Therefore Tracy was disenfranchised and secondarily victimized by the state, because of the impact of federal law (Roe v. Wade*).
All one need do is see Zach's picture and read Tracy's testimony to understand the motivation of those who support Unborn Victims of Violence laws. While this type of issue is obviously going to interest those who do not support abortion, one need not be anti-abortion to support such a law. In fact, many middle-of-the-road abortion supporters do; after all, in such a case the mother is not choosing to end the life of her child. That choice is made for her by an outside party.
Die-hard abortion supporters who would not allow any gestating person any rights whatsoever are merely being consistent in maintaining the national status quo of abortion on demand as a legal right. They understand that Recognizing Zach Marciniak and people like him as human beings presents a problem: It contradicts the right to abortion.
While this type of abortion advocate compromises by supporting harsher consequences for those who victimize pregnant women, she is obviously aware of the complication of charging one person (who kills an unborn child outside of abortion) with murder and not charging another (who kills an unborn child in an abortion). For example, how could a national law charge Zach's dad with murder when Zach's mom, at the same point of pregnancy, could have aborted him legally, no anomaly necessary, in Wichita, Kansas? That would be irrational. Either a growing child is a child or he's not.
Obviously, the circumstance of being wanted or not wanted by one's mother is not what defines a human being. (If it was, I could not be classified as a human being even now!) Surprisingly, Roe v. Wade only contends that it isn't clear to the supreme court whether an unborn child is a child or not, and America is not erring on the side of caution. Abortion supporters therefore really must contend that unborn children are NEVER children, since some can't be children some of the time while others are not children all of the time. (Don't ask me why abortions can only be performed up to 13 weeks in Tallahassee, up to 24 weeks in Orlando, and up to labor in Wichita, KS!)
Abortion supporters fight legislation such as Unborn Victims of Violence laws not because they hate women (on the contrary, most of them are 'feminists') but because, quite frankly, they are trying to prevent abortion from falling prey to the logic that would lead to its downfall.
At this juncture I would like to point out that our own textbook contends that human development begins at conception. See page 54 which reads: 'The planned 21-year National Children's Study (2004) under auspices of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other government agencies aims to follow some 100,000 U.S. children across the country from conception to adulthood.'
On page 12, our book refers to conception as a period of 'child' development. In our text, children are repeatedly described as children from the point of conception. The authors therefore take the position (advertently or not) that human development is ongoing--continuous, even in stages. You read that right. A toddler is not an adolescent anymore than a young adult is a senior citizen. However, at each stage of development the organism is entirely human and endowed with what Thomas Jefferson, in our Declaration of Independence, described as 'certain inalienable rights.' Among those rights is life. Except our country currently excludes the prenatal stage of human development from that endowment.
To reiterate, either a gestating person is a person or he's not. To ascribe the legal term murder to the destruction of one unborn person and not another, based on personal choice, is the worst kind of federal duplicity and egregious illogic.
*Norma McCorvey aka Roe does not support abortion, and tried, unsuccessfully, to have her case overturned."
Obviously I'm going to be the most popular girl in class now.
:: ashli 1:16 AM # ::