Punching Stupid and Evil in the Face Since 1986!

"We are on strike, we the men of the mind. We are on strike against self-immolation. We are on strike against the creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties."-John Galt

Monday, January 11, 2010

It's not a baby unless we want to charge you with murder, then it is.

Today jury selection began in the trial of Scott Roeder, the man accused of killing Dr. George Tiller. Dr. Tiller ran a late term abortion clinic-one of only three-which provided abortion services to women after the 21st week of pregnancy. Mr. Roeder is charged with murder, but will plead not guilty using the "in defense of others" plea, claiming he did what he did in order to save pre-born babies. The prosecution is not happy he will attempt this defense and have started making moves to block Mr. Roeder from using it.
Prosecutors, who are trying Mr. Roeder on a charge of first-degree murder, want to bar defense lawyers from presenting a theory that might lead to a conviction for voluntary manslaughter, which carries a far milder punishment and which could offer Mr. Roeder a chance to present his views on abortion in court.
While I would never support the murder of another human being-EVER-under any circumstances, this case does present several interesting points that must be considered-not only the abortion issue and human rights issues, but also the issue of murder itself. While those that support abortion rights would tell you Dr. Tiller had every right to perform those late term abortions under the law, I would argue that the issue of viability and what exactly is murder applies to abortions performed so late in pregnancy.

Generally speaking, under the law if you kill a pregnant woman and her baby would have been viable outside the womb, you are charged with both murders. In the case of Lacy Peterson, brutally murdered by her husband Scott Peterson, he was also charged in the death of his unborn son. He was charged with both murders because his baby could have easily lived outside the womb.

So, how is it this is not a double standard? The babies Dr. Tiller was aborting had an excellent chance of surviving outside of the womb....therefore there is no arguing that they were not "alive". In fact, I have living proof. If it is murder for me to kill a pregnant woman's baby, how is it not murder when a doctor does it? To lean on the old and tired excuse of saving the mother's life doesn't really fly. If the mothers life is in danger, the baby can be delivered and nature and God will decide if the child is strong enough and healthy enough to survive.....just as these things are decided everyday.

Another oft used argument concerns children with severe disabilities. Most disabilities are found long before the 21st week. For those that are not, is it acceptable to kill those children anyway? How about extending that time up to one hour after the child is born? How about two or three hours? Appalled? You should be, but there is essentially no difference. Once the baby can survive outside the womb, there can be no argument, there is never an acceptable time to kill it. Murder is murder, no matter who you are doing it to.

There is no chance I would ever change my personal feelings on the abortion issue, but one thing is glaringly obvious, we need to set a standard and that standard must apply across the board to ALL people. Even the tiniest people. We can't claim to live in a decent and honorable society and still promote the falsehood that until a baby passes out of it's mother it is not a human being. In that one split second of being born life does not magically enter the body of the baby. It is there the whole time, growing and expanding from day one.