This just in: Babies are people, regardless of geographical location

The House of Delegates in Virginia passed a bill two days ago, on Valentine's day, that declared that in Virginia an infant will be deemed a person from the moment of conception. Its fate in the Senate is unclear.

The bill was proposed by Delegate Marshall, noted a noted pro-lifer. HB1, which can be read here, is being referred to in the media as the "Personhood Bill". Article one and two state the purpose very simply:

"§ 1. The life of each human being begins at conception.

§ 2. Unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being."

The bill goes on, but even just those two articles would essentially make abortions illegal in the state of Virginia. After all, if the unborn child is in fact a human with protectable interests, we can't very well go off killing it for no good reason.

I absolutely and unequivocally agree with the premise of this bill. If you want to read my full stance on abortion, check out this article I wrote back in March of 09. Here's the highlight: abortion arguments are really about the moment when life begins. The logical reasoning for this is simple:

• Humans have rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution, among them a right to life.
• Intentionally slaying an innocent human is murder (To be contrasted by slaying a human who is not innocent, such as an aggressor or a criminal).
• The above facts are true regardless of geographical position. A person does not cease to be a person if they are moved from point A to point B. Therefore, a person's location in a hospital, living room, or the uterus of another person is immaterial to their rights as a person (unless they got there through nefarious means. I do not consider being conceived terribly nefarious).
  
• Therefore, the abortion argument has nothing to do with whether a child is unborn, but whether the fetus is in fact a human child, and when it becomes one.

I am of the opinion that the only non-arbitrary moment we can define as the beginning of life is conception. Any other point in time is completely arbitrary and beyond our abilities to measure accurately. Only at conception, a well defined moment we can measure, can we be absolutely certain that we are not destroying a life. Show me another time when we can absolutely be certain that the spark of life is not present, and I will be in favor of abortions until that time.

The liberal friend of mine who brought this bill to my attention asked me to imagine that I had a uterus. "How would you feel if the government told you what you could do with it?" she asked me.

I would be outraged, of course! It is my uterus! I would picket the capitol building and demand the stopping of the infringement of my rights. I'd get an "I <3 my uterus" tattoo, and maybe take my uterus on outings to increase bonding time. I would do these things up until the moment I became pregnant. At that point my uterus is no longer simply an organ. It is an organ that contains a unique human life. My rights end where the rights of another begin, and just as I have the right to free speech but cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, I have the right to do with my body as I will but not if in doing so I will kill another.

I, too, have a thought experiment challenge. Imagine that you are transported back to the uterus, aware of your surroundings, with all your experiences. Does your location in said uterus invalidate your humanity? The geographical location of a person is immaterial.

All of the above being said, I am not without concerns about this bill. Any time you give a government power, it will eventually abuse that power. Allowing a fetus to be declared human, which I agree with wholeheartedly, has many consequences which should be considered. The drafters of the bill identified two, specifically.

§ 6. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as creating a cause of action against a woman for indirectly harming her unborn child by failing to properly care for herself or by failing to follow any particular program of prenatal care.

§ 7. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as affecting lawful assisted conception.

This protects an overactive government from attempting to regulate prenatal care under the auspices of "protecting the unborn child from negligence", which is a clear case of overreach into the private life of a citizen. Likewise, it does not allow for the unintended consequence of shutting down fertility clinics, which exist to allow loving parents to have children of their own, an admirable goal by any estimation.

What happens if a woman smokes while she is pregnant? It is terrible, I agree, and poor parenting, but should the government be able to regulate it? What about drinking? Half a glass of wine can actually be beneficial in some cases for a pregnant woman. What about a full glass? Two? Should the government regulate this?

What if a woman goes out on an icy day, slips, and therefore has a miscarriage. She's killed her baby, who is now a human. Is this murder? Manslaughter? What if the miscarriage is stress induced? What if the woman didn't even know she was pregnant until she unintentionally killed the little human inside of her?

Common sense would disallow nearly every permutation of the above consequences. Unfortunately, relying on common sense to restrict the power of government practically guarantees abuse. I would feel much safer about this bill if a few more paragraphs were added. I am no lawyer, but for example:

"Nothing in this bill will be interpreted as cause of action against a woman who directly or indirectly causes harm to come to her baby unless it can be proven that such harm was intentional and malicious."

This would place the burden of proof on the state to demonstrate a clear motive before being able to prosecute (which would be the case in nearly all abortions, but not for an after dinner glass of wine).

I would also be careful not to disallow the mythical "abortion to save a mother's life" case. These cases are exceedingly rare. While he was United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a preborn child’s life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother.

Note, I personally would hope that even in the case of a mother's life, the mother in question would have the moral character to place the life of an innocent child above her own. Who among us would laud a woman for jumping out of the way of a bus, instead of throwing her child to safety, essentially trading her child's life for her own? I would not be in favor of legislating this sort of morality, however.

There are few times when I am genuinely proud of my legislature. This is one of them. I applaud them for their intentions, and caution them on their consequences. Tweak this bill just a little bit more, Virginia Senate, and we can have the protection that the unborn deserve without the potential for grave Orwellian consequences.