The Double Standard: Treating Unborn Humans as Victims but Not Abortion Rights

The question of whether the unborn should be treated as people for the purposes of murder but not for abortion is a deeply contentious one. This essay explores the double standard that exists in how the rights of the unborn are considered in different contexts.

Understanding the Legal Framework

Currently, 38 U.S. states treat the murder of a pregnant woman as two homicides. However, the logic behind this classification is not always clear. Some argue that this classification should be either a single charge of murder or criminal abortion, or that the pregnancy should be considered an aggravating factor for sentencing. Other states see the murder of a pregnant woman as a double homicide because the murderer acted against the woman's wishes, infringing upon her personal autonomy. These situations highlight the complexity and moral ambiguity involved in dealing with issues of abortion and the rights of the unborn.

The Importance of a Woman's Autonomy

The central argument often revolves around the fundamental right of a woman to make choices regarding her own body and life. In cases of abortion, it is the woman's right to choose what happens to her body, including whether or not to continue a pregnancy. However, this autonomy is encroached upon in the context of murder, where the woman's life and the potential life of the unborn are both taken away.

Those who advocate for reproductive rights emphasize that the woman is not just an incubator but a person with her own rights and desires. The decision to continue a pregnancy is hers to make, free from external coercion. When a woman is murdered while pregnant, the tragedy is exacerbated by the violation of both her life and the potential life of the unborn.

The Historical Context of Unborn Rights

The historical context of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) and the treatment of the unborn is particularly insightful. At the time of the amendment's adoption, the majority of states recognized the unborn as persons in their laws. Twenty-three states and six territories referred to the fetus as a “child” in their anti-abortion statutes. These laws were enacted to protect the full and equal membership of unborn human beings in the human family.

In Ohio, just three months after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the same legislature passed legislation criminalizing abortion at all stages. This action was not merely reactive but a deliberate step to recognize the unborn as individuals with rights. Notably, several senators who supported the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification sat on the committee that reviewed the anti-abortion bill. Their report stated that physicians had concluded that the foetus in utero is alive from the moment of conception and declared that abortion at any stage is “child-murder.”

The original public meaning of the term “person” in 1868 included unborn children, as evidenced by the legislative actions of the time. This historical context underscores the significance of the unborn's rights in the context of the law and highlights the double standard that exists today.

Conclusion

The difference in the treatment of the unborn in cases of murder versus abortion raises serious ethical and legal questions. While the unborn are recognized as people in the context of murder, they are not afforded the same rights in the context of abortion. This double standard is not only inconsistent but also morally troubling. It is crucial to revisit these legal and ethical frameworks to ensure that the rights and lives of all individuals, born and unborn, are equally protected.