From the Kermit Gosnell trial.
District attorney Seth Williams ties Gosnell's attitude to money
directly to the murders. In a legal abortion, the foetus is injected
with a lethal drug before the mother gives birth - but Gosnell didn't do
this.
"That takes money and it was cheaper for him to just induce labour and then murder the child," Williams says.
And
Opponents noted that murdering babies was already illegal - it's just that in Gosnell's case, no one was enforcing the law.
There's a curious contradiction, in that giving a baby a lethal injection when it's still inside the mother is not murder, but taking the child's life after it is outside the mothers body IS murder. Regardless of the ethics of abortion, I wonder what legal and ethical hoops were jumped through to arrive at that conclusion?
This is really the underlying issue with legal abortion: it's completely arbitrary. Somehow being human (and thus making murder possible) is defined by whether or not you've passed (*completely*, mind you) through the birth canal.
ReplyDeleteA premature baby is given all the care in the world to make sure it survives. A in-womb baby at the same stage of development can be discarded without so much as a second thought.
It doesn't make any sense to me.
I don't have an answer for this, other than it's all human life, from the moment of conception. And that makes me unhappy with IVF too. But no-one who is anyone wants to listen to that side of things. It's as though a human conceptus goes through evolution in the womb, from amoeba, though flatworm to fish and mouse before becoming a potential person.
ReplyDeletePhilip k Dick wrote a story about the irrationality of the 'pro choice' stance, suggesting that children under the age of 14 could be disposed of by the state if their parents no longer wanted them. They were only recognised as human once they reached adulthood/puberty. He lost a lot of friends apparently.