SUBSCRIBER LOGIN

Search
First Things

Loading
« Previous  |Home|  Next »         

Saturday, August 15, 2009, 9:49 AM

Diogenes writes:

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. . . .

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.

2 Comments

    SMatthewStolte
    August 15th, 2009 | 11:31 am

    “The loss to Mrs. Blair is no less significant and real to her.”

    Just to her, of course. Perhaps the law could come up with some way of teaching her that the loss is all in her mind and has nothing to do with reality.

    Cultured Tech
    August 16th, 2009 | 9:35 pm

    I always find 2 challenges when thinking about abortion:

    1. How is it possible that pro-abortion advocates cannot understand the logical consequence of deeming fetuses to be non-human beings?

    2. How can we help them understand?

    I usually don’t want to try #2 because #1 just exasperates me too much.

=