Hawaii Court: Unborn Child Is "Not Human"

Sigh…

WND - The Supreme Court of Hawaii has ruled that unborn children are not "human beings," and therefore women cannot be prosecuted for causing the death of babies by harmful behavior during their pregancies.

The unanimous decision overturns the manslaughter conviction of 32-year-old Tayshea Aiwohi, who was found guilty in connection with the death of her newborn son by smoking crystal methamphetamine shortly before his birth.

This is a good point:

Interestingly, this decision does not rest on the "reasoning" (such as it is) behind Roe v. Wade, which expressly recognized that a state has a legitimate interest in protecting the unborn. Roe decided that the woman's interest in individual autonomy trumps the state's interest (and, presumably, the fetus' interest in not having its arms torn out of their sockets).

But what interest is the Hawai'i Supreme Court trying to protect? It's not the mother's reproductive autonomy; the mother's interest in getting loaded? Since when is that a Constitutionally protected interest?

Here's another point worth considering: Were the court reviewing a man's conviction for murder for punching this woman in the stomach and killing her child (that she was not intending to abort) would the court still hold that the unborn child is not a "human being" or would they rule, as other courts have, that whether or not an unborn child is a "human beings" depends entirely on whether or not the mother wishes to have it?

How did we get to this point in this country? When did the definition of who is and is not a human (and thus is afforded the right not to be murdered) become something that hinges on another person's choice?

You can read more from Rob Port at SayAnythingBlog.com