The woman questioned the hypocrisy of anti-abortion laws recognizing fetuses as babies but not extending it other fundamental rights.
Texas recently passed a restrictive law that virtually bans access to abortion. The Supreme court refused to block the law, allowing the restrictive abortion law to stand in the state. As other conservative states moot passing similar laws to bypass Roe vs Wade, the discussion has turned to the core argument at the heart of the issue — Is the fetus a live person, separate from the woman carrying the fetus? The 'pro-life' movement has claimed the fetus to be a separate live-being and wants it to be treated as such, overriding claims that the person carrying the fetus has a right to abort it.
One woman brilliantly pointed out why a fetus isn't a living person and highlighted that there's no acknowledgment of the same in the law and thus it shouldn't be extended in cases of restrictive abortion laws alone. "If the fetus is a baby, we should be able to take life insurance out on it. That means if someone has a miscarriage, they're entitled to a life insurance policy," says the woman in a video posted online. She can be seen going through her make-up routine as she lists her examples of a fetus not being treated as a living being. "I've had six miscarriages, I would be a millionaire," she adds. The video was posted on TikTok by @drq_dpt.
"If the fetus is a baby, men should start paying child support the second the pregnancy is confirmed. If the fetus is a baby, low-income people should get more food stamps and more welfare for the baby, while they're pregnant with them. If the fetus is a baby, we should be able to claim them on our income taxes for that year," she says while continuing with her make-up routine. "If a fetus is a baby, then every state should have laws that make assaulting a pregnant person also child abuse. If a fetus is baby, every single pregnant person should have gotten a $500 bonus on their stimulus check," she adds. She points out the hypocrisy of the pro-life movement's arguments being limited to controlling women and not actually about recognizing fetuses as live human beings. The video ends with her completing her make-up routine and putting down her lipstick to conclude, "fetus isn't a baby, you just want to control reproductive rights."
So why are fetuses being described as human beings only in abortion laws? A restrictive abortion law passed by Alabama 2 years ago redefines an “unborn child, child or person” as “a human being, specifically including an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability,” reported The Washington Post. The conversation could get more awkward for the pro-life movement once we start redefining citizenship based on conception.
As Carliss Chatman, an assistant professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law, pointed out in an Op-ed, "Can a pregnant immigrant who conceived her child in the United States be expelled? Because doing so would require deporting a U.S. citizen. To determine the citizenship of a fetal person requires examination of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which declares, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” That would leave the conservative movement in no man's land, stuck between wanting to recognize babies so abortion can be outlawed, and extending their human rights beyond abortion laws that would lead to a rise in expenditure on social security and even potentially recognizing 'fetus immigrants' as American citizens.
Well…….not a single lie was told. 🙂 pic.twitter.com/CdGL1PLjsU— 1 of 1. (@Tee_Smiley) September 9, 2021
While conservative politicians and activists are burning the midnight oil to pass restrictive abortion laws, their concerted efforts to cut social security will tell you that they wouldn't want fetuses to be recognized as babies. Republicans are very wary of national debt unless it involves giving rich people a tax cut and recognizing a fetus as a baby would certainly shoot up government expenditure and, of course, the national debt.