Womb baby!
Drudge Report headline: STOLEN WOMB BABY FOUND ALIVE. The headline is referring to the inhuman fetus that was cut from the dead mother's womb.
My question is, if this non-baby baby were killed would it be abortion or murder? Why would the thing be a "choice" if it were inside the womb, but a human if it were outside? I know, I know, damn me for trying to use logic in talking about abortion.
Assuming you believe a fetus is a human being, should someone have the right to kill it just for being inside them? Is it ever okay to kill an innocent human being that poses no threat to your life, or that of anyone else?
If you believe a late-term fetus is not a human being, how do rationalize the fact that, generally speaking, the difference between murder and "choice" is only the location of the fetus/baby as it relates to the mother? Of course, mind-bogglingly, in some states the difference between murder and choice is nothing more than whether or not the mother consented. Scott Peterson was on trial for the murder of his unborn child (and convicted of second degree, if memory serves). Had Laci killed the baby in the womb via abortion, it would have only been a choice.
Assuming you are a rational person, you can see the absurdity in abortion laws. But, what about mid-term and early-term abortion? Is there anyone who can prove, with medical/scientific certainty, when a fetus becomes a human life? If the answer is "no", would a moral and compassionate society not necessarily have to be biased on the side of life?
If criminals are must be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in order to be executed, shouldn't children be afforded the same level of protection? Shouldn't the burden be on those who wish to abort to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they aren't killing a human being?
My question is, if this non-baby baby were killed would it be abortion or murder? Why would the thing be a "choice" if it were inside the womb, but a human if it were outside? I know, I know, damn me for trying to use logic in talking about abortion.
Assuming you believe a fetus is a human being, should someone have the right to kill it just for being inside them? Is it ever okay to kill an innocent human being that poses no threat to your life, or that of anyone else?
If you believe a late-term fetus is not a human being, how do rationalize the fact that, generally speaking, the difference between murder and "choice" is only the location of the fetus/baby as it relates to the mother? Of course, mind-bogglingly, in some states the difference between murder and choice is nothing more than whether or not the mother consented. Scott Peterson was on trial for the murder of his unborn child (and convicted of second degree, if memory serves). Had Laci killed the baby in the womb via abortion, it would have only been a choice.
Assuming you are a rational person, you can see the absurdity in abortion laws. But, what about mid-term and early-term abortion? Is there anyone who can prove, with medical/scientific certainty, when a fetus becomes a human life? If the answer is "no", would a moral and compassionate society not necessarily have to be biased on the side of life?
If criminals are must be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in order to be executed, shouldn't children be afforded the same level of protection? Shouldn't the burden be on those who wish to abort to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they aren't killing a human being?
posted by Unknown at 8:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home