Thursday, March 1, 2012

Logical Consequences: Infanticide

In light of the recent news of the “ethicists” who have written a paper justifying infanticide – which they call “after-birth abortion” – I am re-posting a previous post called “Logical Consequences”. That was in September 2011 – just a few short months ago.

I concluded the post with the comment:

…the validity of the logic depends on the truth of the premise. I’m afraid the world is bordering on insanity on this issue, and is willing to deny the truth in order to pursue the logic of the culture of death.

That logic – the logic of the culture of death – is what is being put forth in the “infanticide” paper. I will be posting more about that later (go here for the new post).

[In September 2011] LifeSiteNews ran a story with the headline “Shock: No jail time for woman who strangled newborn because Canada accepts abortion, says judge”.

Shocked? Well, yes and no. I’ve thought for years that this is the logical outcome of acceptance of abortion, but I guess I never really thought it would happen. I remember reading a story years ago about a college girl who gave birth in a bathroom and then put the baby in a trash can. I remember the horror I felt at such a thing happening, but also remember thinking about the ludicrous fact that while she was condemned for her actions and did some jail time, abortionists are killing thousands of babies each day and yet what they are doing is legal. What is the difference between what the college girl did and the abortionist does? It is only a separation of a small slice of time and the difference of physical location.

I’ve also thought about the laws we have regarding unborn babies. For one thing, of course, abortion is legal (not safe and rare, as its proponents say they would like). It is therefore legal to kill an unborn child. But wait…if a pregnant woman is murdered and her unborn baby also dies, there’s a double murder. Wikipedia’s entry on the subject says, “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

7 months along, in mother's womb
 So, it’s okay to kill some unborn babies, but not others. How do we know when it’s okay and when it’s not? It depends on whether the baby is “wanted”. That begs the question, “Wanted by whom?” Even if the mother says she does not “want” her baby, others often do: the baby’s father, the baby’s grandparents, and even unrelated strangers who would love to adopt the child.

The incongruity of the law on the subject of the killing of unborn children is evident also in the push to pass a “Personhood” amendment to the Constitution. This amendment would essentially define the “fetus” as a person. That would make it difficult to justify the legality of abortion. So there is a war going on right now in that arena, because pro-abortion groups know they must prevent that amendment from becoming reality if they are to stay in business.

Here are the two lines of thinking:

1)      the “fetus” is not a person, not a child, not entitled to life, until a particular milestone has been reached. This milestone must be defined by law, and “logically” we would engage scientific which means to determine that milestone. This won’t happen, though; science has already stipulated that life begins at conception. That’s why the groups following this line of reasoning are intent on “clarifying” the exact date a fetus is aware of pain, or is “viable”, or is cognitively aware of itself (this last definition is being pushed by some extremists and bodes much ill for all mankind. Think about it.)

2)     the “fetus” is a person from the moment of conception. If that is true, then the life of every unborn baby is to be protected by the same laws that protect “born” people. That means no abortion. None. For NO reason.

There are logical consequences of each way of thinking. But remember: the validity of the logic depends on the truth of the premise. I’m afraid the world is bordering on insanity on this issue, and is willing to deny the truth in order to pursue the logic of the culture of death.

See also: Slippery Slope: Justifiable Infanticide

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be courteous and concise.