Here’s one I haven’t heard before: A woman gets pregnant in California by a famous athlete she is casually dating, decides to go to college in New York—tuition paid by the G.I. Bill—and after she moves there, before the baby is born, gets blasted by a New York judge for “her appropriation of the child while in utero,” which the judge calls “irresponsible” and “reprehensible.”

ecib:

Setting aside the judge's boneheaded and simply incorrect ruling, this scenario is the logical outcome across the board of the anti-choice crowd's efforts to define a fetus as a child at every point possible leading back towards inception itself.

Women's ability to move freely across land while pregnant is literally at stake here, and rulings like these can only be more common despite a judges personal belief, if they are based upon laws with premises forged by the philosophy mentioned above.

Just a taste of what could be.

posted 3796 days ago