The Inconsistent Stance of Pro-Abort Politics
Fox News ran a story today about a New Hampshire couple were unhappy that their daughter was pregnant. Instead of any sane form of punishment, the couple allegedly “tied her up, loaded her in their car and headed toward New York to force her to get an abortion.” Luckily for her and her baby, she was able to escape and the parents are now in jail on kidnapping charges. I’m curious to see, though, if murder conspiracy charges will be filed. It’s highly unlikely that they will be, and that’s because the law is unclear and inconsistent with regard to abortion.
Under current American law, it is sometimes OK to kill your child, but at other times it is not. Thanks to a handful of atrocious Supreme Court decisions, should a woman choose to walk into a doctor’s office and ask the doctor to remove the “blob of tissue” in her uterus (that is currently becoming more and more human in appearance, in case that’s significant), she’s completely within her rights — rights that are fiercely defended by the pro-abort crowd. In fact, our government recently decided to make it even easier for a woman to kill her unborn child when it ruled to allow over-the-counter sales of Plan B, the abortifacient “kill pill.” In each instance, the woman and her doctor or pharmacist, are protected from any legal action, and are more often than not applauded for the courage they displayed in making this “hard decision.”
Contrast that now with Scott Peterson. As everyone probably knows, Scott Peterson was arrested, tried, and convicted for the kidnapping of his wife, Laci, and their unborn son, Connor, “which in California is treated as murder if the other requisite elements of murder are met.”1 The interesting thing here is that Peterson was convicted of murdering his son, Connor, presumably because his death was a result of the death of his mother. If, however, Laci had decided to abort her late-term child (which is legal according the SCOTUS), and then Scott murdered her, she would not be guilty of anything and Scott would be guilty of only one murder.
The inconsistency is rather striking to me. If a woman doesn’t want her baby, it’s legal to kill it, as it’s only a blob of tissue, but if a woman wants to keep her baby and someone kills the child, then that person is guilty of murder. The only differentiator is whether or not the child is wanted. Has life been devalued so much that its worth is based only on whether or not someone loves it? For at least a portion of America, I think the answer is clear, and that spells a death sentence for countless precious little children.
1Wikipedia article on Scott Peterson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson_%28convicted_murderer%29