Criminalizing Nature?
Jonathon Pryor writes, concerning the recent South Dakota abortion legislation:
If life begins at conception, and miscarriage is an abortion (by definition, even if it’s spontaneous and outside of our control), then logically miscarriage would have to be illegal in the same way tha abortion is illegal…
That doesn’t follow, for precisely the same reason that laws banning infanticide don’t criminalize cot death.
...What South Dakota is doing, in effect, is trying to criminalize nature. Many will argue that this isn’t what the legislatures intend—and that’s probably right. So the letter of the law will be ignored to follow the spirit of the law…
Having actually read the bill in question, I’d find it hard to construe “specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being” as applicable to miscarriage.
(Aside: if the South Dakota Legislative Research Council can have permalinks to legislation, why can’t Thomas, its Federal equivalent?)
Anyway, I’d hope that most people would recognize that reductionist arguments of the form, “X_ happens in nature, so any law prohibiting the causing of _X is wrong,” aren’t useful at all, unless one is prepared to argue against having laws altogether.
Also, please try to read legislation before attempting nuanced critiques of its language.