Embryo, fetus law necessary

n This letter is in response to the editorial “New fetus law unneeded” (April 5, pg. 6). It is not in response to Matuya Brand’s column (“New law a gateway to abortion ban,” April 7, pg. 3) since there is not enough space here to correct all of her mistakes (i.e. her belief that the nation and, in turn, the world are overpopulated). The main argument the editorial brings against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 is that it has the potential to restrict a woman’s right to choose an abortion. However, the law explicitly states, “nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman … has been obtained.”

Contrary to your statement, it does not “threaten Roe v. Wade” and is not ambiguously worded. In addition, you claim that it is a problem if the offender was not aware that the woman was pregnant. Once again, the law is clear in stating, “An offense under this section does not require proof that the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant.”

Unfortunately, as the deaths of Laci and Connor Peterson exemplify, this law is necessary. The purpose of prosecuting a murderer is, one, to prevent him or her from repeating the offense, and two, to repay losses experienced by the family of the murdered. The parents of Laci Peterson lost two family members that day. This is not because of their personal beliefs, but because they knew they had a grandson. Psychology journals consistently show that miscarriage is felt as a loss of a child to nearly all parents (and in turn grandparents) examined, especially with increasing gestational age. So, imagine the loss that must be felt from being forced to have a miscarriage. Forced! There is no choice here. The difference between this and abortion is that there is no choice involved. The woman did not choose to be battered or to reject the embryo or fetus from her body. That is why the embryo or fetus is a human being and can be treated as one. The mother has embraced him or her and knows him or her as a human being. Roe v. Wade, however, is based on the belief that the woman rejects the embryo or fetus as a human being and believes it to be a part of her body – a parasite if you will. Since the woman in the current bill knows herself to be a mother, a murder of her child should be tried as such. Do you see? This bill is as pro-woman as they get. If you are truly champions of women’s rights, as you appear to believe, you will be in favor of this bill. Also, I encourage you to read the bill, which can be found at www.senate.gov, instead of quoting parts of it from another newspaper.

Mark Oien

CAS ’05