Separation Anxiety: Why Can't Women Separate from a Fetus?
Until now, I wasn't aware that the fetus—a term that, according to the South Dakota law, includes "the implanted embryo"—was a whole, separate, living human being. I thought it was ... you know ... implanted. I mean, I'm just a guy, not really an expert or anything. But, um, placenta? Umbilical cord? Do those terms ring a bell? And that's not even getting to the tricky stuff, like the role of maternal RNA in directing embryonic growth or all the work done by the womb to facilitate the embryo's attachment and nourishment.
I have to say, it's a relief to learn that the embryo is so complete and independent. I mean, it solves the whole problem. Here's this woman who just wants to be separated from her embryo. And lo and behold, it's already separate! No need to agonize. Just detach it and let it grow. It's separate, it's whole, it's living. Cancel the abortion. Perform a separation instead.
Sure, some cranky district attorney might take you to court, claiming your separation was really an abortion. Make sure you countersue for legal costs, because you've got a slam-dunk case. The law under which you're being prosecuted doesn't just declare that embryos and fetuses are separate. It also defines abortion as "the use of any means to intentionally terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant with knowledge that the termination with those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the fetus."
Source: Slate (Via Rational Responders)
If the fetus really is a completely separate human being, how can detaching oneself from a fetus be a crime, never mind murder? I suppose I could understand if some disapprove of separation or even consider a separation to be immoral — just as some disapprove of divorce as immoral. Disapproval, however, is not nearly enough of a foundation for criminalization. In fact, if the fetus is indeed completely separate, then how can it have any moral claim on the woman's uterus?
Of course, all these are questions which expect that the anti-choice position is a reasonable one based on evidence and logic. Although anti-choice activists try to offer many different ways to rationalize their position, they are never able to provide substantive reason to support their position. It's a faith-based ideology that depends far more on dogma, religious ideology, and faith in he existence of fictions like souls than on science, evidence, or logical arguments. So long as that remains the case, we can't really expect serious, helpful answers to pointed questions.
Comments
I’m still not sure what abortion has to do with religion.
Most religions have a “spread the faith” rule. Back in the olden days, population was a great way to overcome enemies. That and infant and general mortality. More babies means more soldiers and farmhands. Abortion rights and religion go hand in hand in the US at least. Most of the arguments against abortion stem from some line in the Bible.
411314: Abortion is a hobby-horse for the religious because the belief in the “soul” (and therefore the afterlife mythology) of their religions is threatened by it. Since the afterlife myth is central to religions, any debate about the fuzzily defined “soul” is a threat to them. They see it as a “slippery slope” issue, because the entire debate causes them questions about the “soul” that they cannot answer. This causes people to question religion generally, which leads to increasing rejection of religious belief.