Now we have Republican Sen. Bruce Starr saying that we need to change Oregon law in the aftermath of the horrible and bizarre killing of a young pregnant mother, Heather Snively.
This is a clear and blatant attempt to redefine what is a person.
"I hope to never see another case like we've seen," Starr said. "But in the event that we do, where you have an unbelievably barbaric crime and clearly two victims, both victims will receive proper justice."
Victims of murder don't receive justice, Mr. Starr. They are dead. A corpse. There is no person to receive that justice. There is no justice for the dead, only for their families and for society.
Starr's lack of thinking on this issue is typical. It is also disgustingly calculating. But what is most disturbing about this cold manipulation of grief is that it is deceitful and opportunistic. Adding to the charges faced by the abomination who carried out this crime would not have prevented Heather's murder.
To think otherwise is absurd. The woman who killed this young mother and cut the fetus from her womb is a monster. Probably insane. And very unlikely to have been deterred by the risk of a second murder charge.
Defining the fetus as a victim is a way of saying the fetus is a person. Calling it murder is a backhanded way of conferring status as a person. We haven't done that yet in Oregon, and we have to do that first if we want to be rational in expanding the homicide stature in this way.
The last time the Religious Right tried to do this in Oregon was in the aftermath of the Laci Peterson murder. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.
Starr is callously taking advantage of this tragedy to promote a political agenda. That is wrong. He is slimy for doing so.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
You were right when you said justice is for her family. I'm cannot even fathom what this experience has been like for Heather Snively's family, and how anyone can pretend to know what this feels like. If any of you had a young daughter who was murdered while eight months pregnant, I bet you would then have an ounce of understanding as to why they are devastated our state turns a blind eye to the murdering of an eight month fetus through an act of homicide. This debate has nothing to do with abortion, as the exemption clause in the bill so notes.
I pray none of you ever have to experience first-hand what Heather's family is going through. And yes, sometimes even a smart poitical move is the right thing to do.
Come on, repetition of "cannot fathom" and "how can any one pretend to know" and "not an ounce of understanding" and "never have to experience" is a ridiculous argument.
If you can't understand the extent of pain this crime caused, then keep it to yourself.
No one denies the killing was a horror, and devastating for the family of Heather Snively. I pray they have the resources to help them cope.
But now what? Passing this misleading legislation does nothing bring her back. It does nothing to lessen the grief of her family. To handle that level of despair, one turns to God or loved ones left, not the legislature.
You prove my point when you say that murdering an eight month fetus is an act of homicide. No, it is not. And should not be until we decide as a state how far we are willing to go in defining what qualifies as a human being under the law, and all of the ramifications of that decision.
We should not do that in the glare of emotions whipped into a frenzy of outrage by a right wing which pretends that this legislation will do anything for anybody. But hey, an atrocity is a terrible thing to waste, eh?
One murder charge or two, the insane woman who cut open that womb did not care. There is no deterrent for someone so lacking in humanity.
If you can put yourself into her mind, you have a better imagination than me.
"It does nothing to lessen the grief of her family."
With respect, I beg to differ. Her family has personally requested this legislation and given their full blessing. Hmm, apparently justice does aid in lessening grief!
Their request and their blessing do not matter. A single grieving family is not reason to alter the laws of a state.
That family will not necessarily receive emotional relief if it passes.
There is another law at work as well: The Law of Unintended Consequences. This deceitful legislation reaches much farther than it seems.
The "cold manipulation of grief" as you like to put it, is a very useful tool. A tool that has been responsible for the passage of countless worthwhile laws. Just about any law that you can think of with a name attached to it (Adam's Law, Molly's Law, Heidi's Law, Amanda's Law, etc.) is the result of the "cold manipulation of grief." Laws are passed every day that are both reactionary and emotional in nature. By BOTH party's.
And you're right, Heather's Law (let's just call it that for now), would have done nothing to deter the whacko that carried out this crime. It would, however, hold her responsible for the death of two human beings. It can't be denied that there were two beating hearts up until the time of these murders.
You like to call the child in this case a "fetus". Kinda funny how in other pregnancies in which the mother is this far along, and she and her doctor decide that for medical reasons the "fetus" must be taken to save its life, or her life, everyone involved calls it the baby. Or he, or she, or even by its given name. But not the "fetus".
You know as well as I do that a fetus is a person. I don't give a rip what Oregon law says. Sit in a room in St. Charles with a loving mom and dad as an ultrasound wand is manipulated over the woman's pregnant belly. You'll see two things. One, an amazing picture of a person that is alive and kicking (and sucking its thumb, hiccupping, and...) and two, a couple that love that little person very deeply. Cute little fetus.
Three dozen states, and the federal government, have legislation similar to what Starr is proposing. And in all cases, there are exceptions made for legal abortion.
To call Starr slimy for proposing a change Oregon law because of this tragedy is ridiculous. And to label this as the handiwork of the Religious Right is misguided. I'm neither religious, nor right, and I support these types of laws.
By all indications, the child in this case was healthy, and would have been born healthy, if HE had the chance. I think he deserves some recognition under Oregon law, too. Even if he hadn't taken his first breath yet. Someone took that opportunity away from him.
So what are you so worried about, hmmm? Perhaps you have a guilty conscience. Don't worry though, a woman still has the right to do what she chooses with her body under the law. And I'm sure that both houses of the Oregon legislature, under the control of Democrats, will see to it that right remains. The nervousness felt by abortion advocates about these laws is unfounded.
Well, until that last paragraph, which started out a bit gratuitous, this response was well reasoned, beautifully articulated.
And wrong.
If you assume that a fetus is a person, then of course you are (tautologically) correct. People should get rights granted to people.
But that is the question, isn't it? It hasn't gone away, despite your heart rending examples.
Because you say that you don't give a rip what Oregon Law says, you prove your argument is incoherent. We are talking about Oregon law, here, and changing that law. If you don't care what the law says, why are you involved in the discussion?
We do not currently treat the average early miscarriage as the loss of a human being, as unfortunate an event as that may be. There are many other instances where we don't consider a clump of cells less sophisticated than the average rainbow trout to be a human. You say we should, but much of the argument for decades has been really over the question of "when?" And you don't even attempt to answer it.
Should we continue to treat a miscarriage the old way, but the death as a result of foul play in another? Would you say then that the circumstances surrounding the loss of a life define what the life is that is lost? That is an absurd proposition.
I don't know at what stage of development a fetus should be considered "human being" enough to have rights. It will land somewhere between conception and birth, I suppose. That is for better brains than mine. I just want there to be a really good discussion -- an honest one -- over the real issue.
Which is not about a woman's "right to choose," by the way. That is a sleight-of-hand for those trying to hide their agenda. Cloudy thinking over "right to life" and "right to choose" is one reason this debate remains unresolved. The state has no problem telling a mother she has to seek medical care for her sick child. If we determine that extends to life in the womb, so be it. A mother's "right to choose" becomes irrelevant.
But, before we go about passing laws that redefine "murder of a human being," the question of what is (legally) a human being must be answered first.
Post a Comment