this is it!

I read this post in Jezebel about the new Utah law that makes so-deemed intentional miscarriage the equivalent of murder (which is INSANE and terrible), and reading the rhetoric of the post as well as that of the comments below it did, in the end, make me really frustrated with my fellow lefties.

The rhetoric that the left uses in its defense of abortion and in protest of the laws such as that in Utah is frustrating because it is essentially exactly the same as that used by the other side. The law in Utah is obviously a moral outrage. What I’m frustrated with in the case of such arguments as those made on Jezebel isn’t their point of view (I very much agree with them), but rather the fact that they make their moral outrage the basis of their argument, and ignore the legality question entirely. In so doing, such arguments mirror almost exactly their counterpoints on the right: replace “woman” with “baby” in many of the statements that commenters left below the Jezebel post (i.e., these laws endanger women’s lives, etc.) and you have the words of a Christian conservative at an anti-abortion rally.

Examples of the moral stance, from the post itself…

But perhaps the worst thing about the law is that it subjects to imprisonment women who were probably in dire straits to begin with (as was the 17-year-old who inadvertently inspired the bill by paying someone to beat her into miscarriage).

…and from commenters:

… I actually was pro-life, when I was about 10, and my mom sat me down and flat out said “if this option is not available for women, there are going to be women desperate enough to use the coat-hanger method, go to seedy back-alley doctors, kill themselves, etc.” …

Women are blamed for their rapes, just blame them for their miscarriages too.

… This is not criminal, it’s tragic. In order to prevent women from doing desperate things to induce miscarriages on their own, you need to fix the problems that lead up to it. What does punishing a woman for this accomplish? Except to make her feel even more desperate?

I find this legislature to be about as progressive and protective of women as maybe, the the Salem Witch Trials. So, great job by 17th century standards Utah.

For comparison, here’s a statement from the obviously opposite-minded group Christian Action:

Abraham Lincoln in the 19th century said: “No one has the right to do what is wrong.”

This country has just ended discrimination based on race. Are we now going to start discrimination on the basis of age? Saying:”I’m older than you, I’m bigger than you, I have a voice – therefore I can kill you.”

Pro-choice or pro-life (those names alone give away to what extent this debate is based on spin), the rhetoric is similarly (morally) spun. We would do well to remember that the question as it is debated in courts isn’t–or rather, shouldn’t be–a moral one: law is not about morals. Law, ideally, is only about the law–and ultimately the constitution. Arguing these issues in terms of morality won’t win anyone over. Obviously someone holding a giant poster of an aborted fetus isn’t going to to change their minds over anyone else’s pro-choice appeal, however emotionally compelling and morally sound. As we’ve seen since Roe v. Wade, the moral arguments are endless.

If we on the left want to actually win this battle, the question of the morality of laws such as that in Utah should be made irrelevant. The question of the law’s legality is what matters. As the lengthy decision for Roe v. Wade states–which is, actually, a fascinating document to read–a fetus has never, in the entire legal history of the West, been considered a living person in a court of law. And since that case, every woman seeking an abortion is protected under what the decision deemed her right to privacy. Therefore, a women cannot be persecuted for having an abortion, or, as the case may be, a miscarriage.

Why does no one talk about this? This law in Utah and the laws in other states (including, apparently and surprisingly, New York) that make miscarriage a case for murder and otherwise limit womens’ right to an abortion are unconstitutional in that they not only put the preservation of an unborn fetus before the well-being of the woman carrying it, but in so doing they violate a woman’s constitutional right to privacy in her decisions about her own body. It’s not a pretty argument, I know, but it’s the most compelling legal one. And for once it would be nice to hear people talk about the law as it’s written and as it’s been argued before, instead of watching both sides craft eerily similar political rhetoric meant to tug at my heart strings, whether it be in favor of the well-being of a woman or of an unborn baby.

I’m sick of hearing about coat hangers and fetal fingernails. Let’s please argue this like adults and in the legal sense–where it may actually make a difference.