Today the House of Representatives passed a bill that classifies an assualt on a pregant woman as two separate crimes, one against the woman and one against the unborn fetus if the fetus is harmed. I thought this was pretty progressive when i read the headline, but after thinking for about a second and a half, it's obvious that it's just more abortion politics at play. I've never understood, really, why people think a fetus should have rights. Even under "unalienable human rights." I can't personally classify a fetus as a human until it's plopped out and is officially a member of society. They dont' count in a census, they don't count. Just from a statistical side, it could be a potential nightmare. Just for the sake of argument, suppose in a certain area there are 100 pregant women, and every single pregnant woman is assaulted. That's 200 assualts, and if there are twins involved, that's more. So you have 200 or more "people" assualted in a population of 100. This is a ridiculous example, I know. But I'm not in favor of any law or system of record keeping where the most outlandish example is actually possible. How can there be more cases of something than actual people involved? If my car is stolen, can I prosecute the thief for taking the car and the gasoline? I'm a proponent of the right to choose, and I'm worried that this law is just another step to curtailing that right. I'm sure it will only be a little while until there's some interpretation of abortion as assault on the fetus, and someone will try to outlaw abortion on a technicality without an actual new law being written. That'd be the perfect way around it. It's a pretty smart way to go about it if you ask me, if that's the agenda here. There's no question that you can't do much worse than assaulting a pregant woman, but this law seems totally pointless. The failed alternative was to increase the penalty for assault on a pregant woman, while keeping the fetus out of it, which seems to make a lot more sense and which naturally failed.What's even more distressing is the fact that at the same time unborn non-people are being secured new rights, millions of actual, living and breathing people are potentially being stripped of theirs in this whole gay-marriage fiasco. I'm sure it will be of great comfort to a lesbian couple that if one of them is attacked while pregant, they're afforded some protection under the law, albeit after the fact.
What's even more shocking to me personally is that, apparently, the great majority of people are against recognizing gay marriage. Bush is obviously against it, but so are Kerry, Edwards, the Clintons, and most other politicians. If Bush had simply turned up his public levels of opposition to it, I might've actually still voted for him, since it's pretty mush a wash with all the other candidates. But this Amendment business is too much. I'm pretty sure even if I was vehemently against gay marriage, I'd still think the a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage was a big. fucking. waste. of. time. I think if Bush is going to be re-elected, it'll be on the strength of his foreign policy (mostly the fact that he has one) and the seemingly adequate economy. No need to get into this. This is second term stuff. Though, as I said before, sad as it may seem, I think this Amendment stuff can only help him. Whoever's stuck with him this long is with him for the reasons I mentioned, and this probably won't change their minds. They'll just see it as another price to pay on for waging a war on terrorism. I'm really wondering what the next "war" will be on. After drugs and terror, what will be the next overly general, over-reaching, intangible...thing... to face the full might of the U.S.? Infidelity? Meanness? Or maybe the Bill of Rights itself. You know, after perusing the amendements of the constitution, I'm starting to think that it's not Constitutional rights in general that people should be worried about losing. It's just the original ten amendments that we should worry about. No one's worried that Amendment XXVII is going to be ignored anytime soon. I think we only need to worry about the Bill of Rights. And when you look at it that way, it doesn't seem as daunting. And you know the right to bear arms will never be repealed, so that's only 9 amendments we have to worry about. Even if we lose those 9, we still have 18 inalienable rights to enjoy, rights that people in some countries couldn't dream of having. Of course, two of the Amendments deal with prohibition, one enacting and the other repealing, so really we only have 16. But that's still not too bad I guess.
Of course, I'm really not serious. I don't think we'll really lose any Constitutional rights. But you could certainly make the argument that they're being infringed upon. Of course, it's tough to rally around something like "infringement." People tend to repsond better to rights being "lost," or "threatened" or "stripped" or "revoked." "Infringed upon" just doesn't have the pizzaz. But it's a lot easier to do.
Not to get too big for my britches, but here's a quick look at the top ten, and thoughts on possible levels of infringement.Amendment I [Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition (1791)] - Hoo, a lot of trouble brewing here. Though on a total point scale, it should remain fairly even. Less free speech, press, assembly rights, but probably more religious right(s). "Religious right," get it? ha.
Amendment II [Right to Bear Arms (1791)] - Not going anywhere unless "pried from my cold, dead hands."
Amendment III [Quartering of Troops (1791)] - A bit outdated, but honestly, quartering of troops wouldn't surprise me that much, if an area were subject to terrorist attack on a large scale.
Amendment IV [Search and Seizure (1791)] - More ways around this than any of the others I think.
Amendment V [Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process (1791)] - Due process? More due process for an unborn fetus than a potential "enemy combatant"
Amendment VI [Criminal Prosecutions - Jury Trial, Right to Confront and to Counsel (1791)] -See above.
Amendment VII [Common Law Suits - Jury Trial (1791)] -I'm not even sure what this means, but it seems obsolete based on its descriptions and the current appeal processes available. But then, "I don't understand your laws... your world confuses me. Hey, I'm just a caveman."
Amendment VIII [Excess Bail or Fines, Cruel and Unusual Punishment (1791)] -I'm sure this is violated every single day, probably since before the ink was dry.
Amendment IX [Non-Enumerated Rights (1791)]- This is another "good in principle" amendment whose spirit is violated in the guise of actually protecting people's rights. Still, I'm not entirely clear on this one either, but it seems like it's treated like a bunch of hooey.
Amendment X [Rights Reserved to States (1791)] - This is exactly what the hubbub is about I reckon. I thought the states were supposed to decide things like gay marriage. Republicans are supposedly big on states' rights, and not keen on big Federal government, but can you get more Federal than amending this constitution?
I took a presidential match test recently, and it told me the candidate I was most closely matched with was Kucinich. That figures. I'm best represented by a man who's supported by about 1% of a party that I don't belong to. But the more I think about it, the closer the fit is.
Mail to G-Rock