Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Deb49's avatar

I’m apparently a little slow on the uptake, but I had an epiphany the other day. If a fetus/embryo/zygote/blastocyst, whatever is accorded the rights of a person, it can only be at the expense of the pregnant person in whose body it resides. Only one of the two can be a person in the legal sense, and if the fetus is such a person, then the woman is not. Another way of saying that is if women are to be considered legal persons, then a fetus cannot be. And it cannot be legal or constitutional to take away the legal personhood of women.

Slipping someone a drug without their knowledge may be a crime, but it is a crime against the person who unwittingly takes the drug. Once again, either the pregnant person has rights, or the fetus has rights—it can’t be both. It is notable that the murder charge presumes that the fetus is the one with rights, and the woman who was chemically assaulted is presumed not to have rights, since that assault is not charged. What a world.

Also, having had 2 miscarriages at 12 weeks, I challenge anyone to find “fetal remains” in what looked both times like a particularly clotty period. This whole business of trying to legislate “proper disposal of a corpse” presumes that there is a corpse in there somewhere. You can anthropomorphize a bunch of blood cells all you want, but it won’t make them a “corpse.”

Expand full comment
Elizabeth Carey Smith's avatar

Thought I’d share this to make you smirk if we can’t smile—my 74yo mother has been having unexplained bleeding 😢 and bc she lives in antagonistic Missouri and has to go to a Catholic (the only local) hospital to get D&Cs, she refers to her treatment to all the staff as her abortions. When they get flummoxed, she makes them tell her the distinction. “Go ahead, I’m retired, I’ll wait.”

Expand full comment
36 more comments...

No posts