For some reason unknown to me, very few people seem to grasp the legal insanity that would result from granting personhood to fetuses. Luckily, the North Dakota Senate recognized the danger, and struck down a bill that would have done just that.
The Senate voted 29-16 Friday to defeat the controversial House Bill 1572, known as the personhood bill, with no debate.
Sen. Curt Olafson, R-Edinburg, the only person who spoke on it, said the bill would create more serious legal consequences for the state than any bill he’s ever seen as a lawmaker.
…He said it “reaches far beyond protecting human rights” into unrelated consequence because it declares all fertilized embryos persons for the purposes of myriad laws that have nothing to do protecting human rights.
A physician “faces an impossible dilemma” if needing to treat a pregnant woman for cancer that could harm a fetus or embryo, or a woman experiencing an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy, he said.
Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota released a statement Friday calling the defeated bill “poorly constructed” and which would have outlawed contraception as well as medical procedures needed to treat tubal pregnancies and infertility.
It “would have had a profound impact on the state, affecting everything from when property rights are granted to inheritance rights to access to the courts,” the organization said.
This, then, is the crux of the dilemma faced by anti-abortion lawmakers. They’re faced with an internal contradiction. They have an ideological agenda which would be helped by defining a zygote as a human, but the reality is that they don’t want fetuses to be people. They just want abortion to be illegal.
This highlights what I’ve been saying in various threads recently. Intuitively, we know that a fetus is not a person. It becomes patently obvious when we are faced with the legal realities of going against our intuition to push an agenda through. Opponents of abortion have a great emotional investment in controlling the behavior of others no matter what, but they really don’t have any arguments good enough to enforce their will through reason. Instead, they are playing a very dangerous game of manipulating the definitions in our existing law.
If I were a slightly more sadistic person, I might wish that some state would go through with this insanity so I could sit back and laugh when the first Polly Homemaker was charged with involuntary manslaughter after having a spontaneous abortion. Since I care about my fellow humans more than that, I can only be thankful that reason has prevailed.