The Unforeseen Ramifications of the Right to Life

8 Feb

So apparently there is some bill that wants to amend the U.S. Constitution to give the right to life to each born and unborn human being. There is something that many anti-choicers fail to even consider when they go on and on about the sanctity of life and giving the right to life to the unborn. If every born and unborn person has the right to life, then right off the bat, the death penalty would be illegal. How many antis would give that a thumbs up? Next, if the government were to send soldiers into war with any inkling that they might die, that would be a violation of the right to life. In law, you can consent to assault but you cannot consent to aggravated assault. In theory, soldiers consent to the possibility of death, but if they have a right to life it would be easy to argue that sending a person to almost certain death would be a violation of that right, and thus illegal. So the death penalty and war are illegal, what next?

Less obvious, it would ultimately be illegal to deny life-saving medical treatment, meaning Arizona’s death panels that deny Medicaid coverage to those in need of organ transplants would be illegal. Not only that, but arguably it would be illegal for insurance companies to deny any medical treatment that would save a person’s life. If insurance companies couldn’t deny treatment, it is doubtful many of them would stay in business, meaning the government would have to pick up the insurance business and offer universal healthcare to all U.S. citizens to ensure that their right to life wasn’t infringed. So now the death penalty and war are illegal and the U.S. has a “socialist” health care system.

I bet there would be a whole lot of unhappy antis at this point, but let’s keep going. Next we would have women who are pregnant. While rare, women in the U.S. still die in childbirth. Even assuming we are willing to allow them to consent to that, if a woman does not consent to the possibility of death, then it would be illegal for her to be forced to maintain an unwanted pregnancy because she has a right to life. So she would be entitled to an abortion. In the alternative, women who were forced to self-abort and kill themselves would have their right to life violated and thus illegal, inaccessible abortion would still be a violation of their rights.

And there you have the ramifications of the “right to life of each born and unborn human person.” No war, no death penalty, socialized health care and the right to abortion. Bet the antis didn’t think of that? Then again, the antis really only want to give the right to life to men and the unborn because they have more of a right to a woman’s body than the woman herself.

I still 100% oppose these bullshit bills for the simple reason that the above scenarios would likely require judges to make these determinations, namely the Supreme Court, and I don’t trust America judges as a group further than I can throw them. You’d also end up with thousands of women dying from illegal abortions in the interim. That being said, this would be an excellent example of be-careful-what-you-wish-for. One can dream eh?

5 Responses to “The Unforeseen Ramifications of the Right to Life”

  1. J_Shabbadoo February 8, 2011 at 1:47 pm #

    Of course, we all know that most of these antis couldn’t possibly care less about people once they’re actually born.

  2. Molly February 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm #

    Boom, roasted. 😛 Love this article. Informative, and a wryly amusing take.

  3. Lifer March 8, 2011 at 5:15 am #

    I bet you don’t like it when pro-lifers lump you into a stereotype too, right?

    I am prolife :anti-death penalty anti-war and pro everyone having access to holistic life-saving healthcare *

    I am also poor, young, not white, a feminist, “bisexual”, agnostic and a woman. Not a rich old white religious homophobic bloodthirsty mysogonistic republican man.

    There are a lot of other prolifers who also promote life more broadly then just the lives of innocent unborn children who can not advocate for themselves.

    But you’re right- by your definition- a lot don’t support all life.

    Pro-life, like pro-choice are both misnomers.

    Because just like the pro-life movement doesn’t actually address all life
    The pro-choice movement doesn’t actually address all choice.

    So in the interest of being intellectually honest from now on let’s call your camp : the “Anti-illegalization of abortion” group or “Pro- legal abortion” whichever you prefer. And my camp can be “Pro- the illegalization of abortion” or “Anti-legal abortion” group.

    Also, saying abortions are technically pro-life is a ridiculous stretch. The most pro-life thing to do is whatever keeps both people alive .

  4. Shayna March 8, 2011 at 1:23 pm #

    Lifer –

    Pro-choice is an accurate term because it represents our support of a woman’s right to CHOOSE to have an abortion, not that we think every woman SHOULD have an abortion. Many of us are mothers or will be one day.

    Ideally, every woman should be able to make this choice for herself.

    Also, pro-choice is pro-life because it is about what is best for the woman’s life. We do not feel that the microscopic bundle of cells known as an embryo is “life” on the same scale.

    Hope that helps!


  1. Tweets that mention The Unforeseen Ramifications of the Right to Life | Abortion Gang -- - February 8, 2011

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Abortion On Demand and RHAP, The Abortion Gang. The Abortion Gang said: new post: The Unforeseen Ramifications of the Right to Life #prochoice […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: