Abortion and Capital Murder

Under the current regime of Roe v. Wade, it is legal for a mother to have her unborn child killed at any stage of pregnancy. Yet this week a San Antonio father was convicted of one count of capital murder for killing his unborn child (read the story).

This tragic story here in Texas highlights the inconsistency and injustice of abortion-law in the U.S. In Texas it is a capital offense to kill an “unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.” Currently, there are at least 36 states that have such homicide laws defining a fetus as a person. Yet abortion remains legal in the U.S. at every stage of pregnancy under Roe v. Wade.

What is the difference between the unborn child that is killed by the abortionist and this one that was killed by his own father? The only difference is that in the former case the mother wants the child to be killed and in the latter case she does not. The humanity of the unborn is the same in both cases, yet one child can be killed legally and the other cannot.

The regime of Roe v. Wade has given us the intolerable situation in which the will of the strong totally defines the rights and value of the weak. If a mother wants her unborn child to live, then we call it “murder” when someone kills it. If the mother wants the child to die, then we call it “legal abortion.”

It is amazing to me that more people don’t see the contradiction within our own laws concerning the humanity of the unborn. Nevertheless, the appalling contradictions are there. It is for this reason that I believe the culture of death will one day collapse under the weight of its own inconsistencies. I’m hoping and praying that time will come sooner rather than later.

3 Responses to Abortion and Capital Murder

  1. ausblog February 9, 2007 at 8:43 pm #

    The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a United States law which defines violent assault committed against pregnant women as being a crime against two persons: the woman and the fetus she carries.

    This law was passed in 2004 after the murder of the then pregnant Laci Peterson and her fetus, Connor Peterson.

    If it is right for a man (or woman) to be charged for homicide and sentenced to prison (or worse) for killing the unborn (and rightfully so)

    then shouldn’t the unborn have equil consideration in relation to abortion..?

    Is a fetus earmarked for abortion of any less value to a fetus killed by violence…?

    Is not abortion a violent attack on an inocent life just the same…?

    I think it’s not ethical to protect one without the other…..

    they’re one and the same……..

  2. ausblog February 11, 2007 at 9:47 am #

    Have you seen :
    The Manipulation of ‘Post-Abortion Syndrome’: Part Two:
    by Marcy Bloom ?
    comments are also a good read.

    Bruce.

  3. Chris Jones February 16, 2007 at 6:30 am #

    the problem arises from the fact that augustine got us on the road to locate the ethical question in the intent. i mean, augustine said that the act of killing another human is neutral. what matters is the heart of the one killing. he did made this move to justify his just war theory.

    i think many have applied this faulty and fallen thinking to the abortion issue. the act of killing a baby is neutral. what matters is the heart of the one doing it. i pray we people will see the light.

    shalom

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes