Woman Sentenced for Leaving Baby to Die, But Abortion is Okay?
How can anyone ignore the irony in this awful story reported in the Washington Post yesterday?
A young woman walks out into a field with a pink towel, scissors,
and a plastic bag, gives birth to a daughter, cuts the umbilical cord
and leaves the baby to die.
Of course she could have had an abortionist legally kill the child.
The Supreme Court case of Doe v. Bolton mandates that an
abortion be legal even after viability if an abortion doctor cites
emotional or “familial” reasons for the abortion. During a post-arrest
interview the woman said she had been raped, and the prosecutor said
the woman got rid of the baby because she was afraid the man she was
living with, whom she considered her husband, would break up with her
for having another man’s child. Plenty of legal grounds for a
late-term abortion.
Assistant State’s Attorney Renee Battle-Brooks argued that whether
she was impregnated because she was raped was irrelevant. “That
doesn’t make [the baby's] life any less valuable,” Battle-Brooks said.
“That baby struggled for breath in that plastic bag. She was alone, she
was cold and she was hungry.”
Last month a 33-year old Rhode Island woman was sentenced to 25 years for killing her newborn daughter.
The baby was found in a plastic garbage bag under a laundry
appliance in the woman’s parents’ home. Judge Robert Krause of
Providence County said, “Not to impose a substantial jail sentence …
would simply devalue the life of a child.” Krause added: “No civilized
society is prepared to do that and neither am I.”
My point in raising these cases is not to argue for criminal
penalties for women who have abortions – no one in the pro-life
movement seeks that – but to show the irony in our law, and the
striking quotes from those in the legal system as they recognize and
defend the humanity of the youngest of babies. They sound so much like
pro-lifers. One day, God willing, everyone will speak this way about
children, even before birth.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Sooner than later. Killing babies , by another other name, is still killing babies. No amount of feel-good rhetoric changes this truth-- Especially for the babies as they are being killed.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
I just made a long call to the Family Research Council in Washington DC, I was interested in possibly supporting them, I agree on many of the positions they claim to represent. I am setting here very disappointed, to use mild comparisons they appear to be modern day Pharisees and Sadducees. For you non Christians they may be people who have hidden motives and are not who they claim to be. It is impossible to determine who or where there funding comes from. For all we know they could be funded by interests in China who wish to have much more control over the USA. The Fact is we just don’t know who the money comes from or if they have hidden motives. Do any of you know exactly who there money comes from? Please don’t use the Evangelical Council as a resource to find more on this subject, you will get only general meaningless data from them. How about it Family Research Council, give us a list of your top twenty contributors and there amounts.
Super Expert
I agree that abortion is a terrible practice but the fact of the matter is that the woman who has the future baby growing inside of her is the only person who is qualified to make that decision.
A perfect example.
It ignores the fact that a man helped make the baby , in EVERY case, and it also ignores the fact that in usual circumstances, the man is held financially responsible for the child if she chooses to not kill it.
Can you name any other case wherein one person can be held liable for tens of thousands of dollars based on the choice of another?
You cannot, because there is no other situation in which this is allowed under law due to the Equal Protections Clause of the Constitution. This is why giving special "choices" to women are unconstitutional.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
has anything to do with this. Whether or not the man is held accountable should the woman have the child, it is still the woman who has to carry the baby , whose food choices will directly impact the health of the baby, and she is the only one responsible or accountable at this point. So I don't see why that has anything to do with it. How does a man's financial accountability post-birth entitle him to make a life changing decision for somebody else?
It is the Equal Protection under the law clause, that is how.
Am I suggesting that he should have majority voice in a decision? No.
Nor should she, either. As a couple comprised of equals, they should have equal rights and equal responsibilities.
Are you truly arguing for inequality?
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
I thought I replied to this yesterday but apparently I never clicked submit or something...
What I tried to point out is that a man has the capability to rape a woman while leaving a woman with 100% of the burden to carry and deliver the baby . After the baby is born the woman can turn it over to another family for adoption which is when a man's opinion is relevant and therefor his consent is obligatory. But since the woman has to carry the baby and deliver the baby, it is her choice alone to make.
If a man's consent is required for abortion that eliminates all of the situations where abortion is actually morally defensible such as rape and drugged out or otherwise irresponsible parents.
Are you arguing that because it is /possible/ that a man can rape, and impregnate, a woman all other men have no say in whether his child lives or not?
This seems like an indefensible position to me.
I understand that the woman is responsible for 9 months of gestation, but I think you should at least consider acknowledging the fact that the man is financially liable for that person for the next 18 years. That is 24 times the length. For every month the woman carries the child, the man pays for 2 years. There is no other scenario in America where a person can be held legally responsible for another person's decision.
My argument is equality. Why is it reasonable that the man has no say? Is his life not affected in a major way?
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
My point is that because the man is fiscally obligated to pay for the baby he most certainly should have a chance to opt for the woman to have an abortion (and this could potentially remove his fiscal responsibility) but he should not have the option to force the woman to have the baby despite her own objections. Since she will have to carry and deliver the baby no matter what, the carrying and delivering of the baby is her choice to make.
There are some gender inequalities that abortion addresses but this isn't enough to justify it.