U.S. Law Needs Consistency on Defining Life

by Roland Hulme

The abortion issue is clouded by contradictory laws.

How can we seriously debate "personhood" and "the right to life" and "a woman's right to choose" when we have situations like the one below hitting the headlines:

Homicide Reports
Los Angeles Times, February 5, 2012
Baby Bao, a fetus, died Sunday, Feb. 5, in the 1000 block of South Ynez Avenue in Monterey Park, according to Los Angeles County coroner's records. 

My issue is wondering how a 3-month old fetus can be considered a homicide victim - after dying as a result of domestic violence committed against the mother who carried him - when fetuses of the same term length can still legally be aborted all across the country. 

I'm not saying the definition is right or wrong, in either example. Personally, I'm opposed to abortion (although is anybody really "pro" abortion?) but still support legal access to it because I think it would be devastating to American society if the safe, sane, regulated abortion industry as it is today was driven underground.

But there is a huge legal disconnect when a voluntary abortion is legal, and an involuntary one (as the "murder" of Baby Bao would technically be described) is defined as "homicide."

It's a problem that definitely plays into the hands of the pro-life crowd. For those who are pro-life, the only conclusion to draw from Bao's spontaneous abortion being treated as a homicide is that all unborn babies are "people" and an abortion is always considered "murder," whether it's performed in the sterile environment of a regulated abortion clinic, or as a result of the fists and boots of a violent husband.

For the "pro-choice" crowd, the response is either inconsistent or horrific. On one hand, you could argue that Bao's termination was "murder" because his mother considered her unborn baby her "child" and that losing him was as traumatic to her as losing one of her existing children (which, . By contrast, a woman who has an abortion does not want to carry her fetus to term, so does not consider it a "person."

But the problem there is trying to justify giving the power of life and death over an unborn baby to baby's mother; especially since the full force of the law supports that arbitrary decision and a man faces a lifetime in prison as a result. He will be charged with murder for causing Bao's spontaneous abortion. A doctor in a clinic, on the other hand, can do exactly the same thing day in and day out with no legal repercussions whatsoever.

From a pro-choice perspective, the only other way of looking at it is that fetuses aren't people under any circumstances - and Bao's father causing a miscarriage through violence wasn't "murder" but just an extension of his assault on the unborn baby's mother. That's a consistent argument; but a fairly inhuman one.

As a parent who is excited about a pregnancy, I know you start to consider your unborn babies as "people" weeks and months before they emerge, wailing, into this world. My wife and I experienced two miscarriages and I'll admit with both mourned for the loss of a potential "person" for a number of weeks as a result. Some legal definition saying that these unborn babies weren't "people" wouldn't stop many people considering them exactly that.

All these circles back to my official line on abortion - that defining "personhood" and defending a woman's "right to choose" is background noise that masks the real issue. Abortion is not a disease - it's the symptom of a disease. The real issue is that millions of American women have unplanned or unwanted pregnancies every year. In an age in which we have free and easy access to contraception that's 99% effective, such a statistic is unconscionable.

Republicans and Democrats alike should quite fighting over the right to have - or not have - an abortion and instead work together to create an America in which abortions are no longer necessary.