As usual, I am ashamed of the shenanigans that go on where I live in the state of South Carolina. I spotted the latest while scanning the regular feeds that come to my desktop each day; this one from Crooks and Liars: South Carolina Legislators Want ‘Stand Your Ground’ Expanded To Fetuses.
The legal argument is that mothers should be able to defend not only themselves but also their unborn child, starting at conception. Of course this is a ridiculous and unnecessary extension to the law since the pregnant mother, under the existing law, could legally blow away an assailant for threatening her, pregnant or not. But the discussion suggests that this is a backdoor try by the religious-right and the ultra-conservatives to get personhood legally affixed to the projected child at the time of conception. Tricky, huh?
But if the South Carolina legislators feel that a fetus might be in danger of it’s life and the mother isn’t a part of the equation then I assume that the fetus will have to fire the gun in order to claim ‘Stand Your Ground’ status. After all, starting from conception the fetus has been a person and therefore should be able to defend itself. However, if the mother-to-be is the one on the defensive, then she is protecting her body and anything that might be inside her body. That sounds like the projected child is not a separate person but actually a function of the woman’s body.
I realize that the highest judges of the land are mere hand-puppets of the plutocracy with little or no capacity to think for themselves (or in one or two case, the think .. period), but someday South Carolina may discover that the law, which seemed so smart and effective, will end up doing exactly the opposite of what it was intended to do. Unless, of course, a new line of firearms is developed specifically for the tiny hands of unborn fetuses.