count($langgroup); } echo "

Arquivo de idioma correto! (01.12.2006)

"; echo "Esse arquivo contém $groups grupos e um total de $total marcações."; } ?> Think About These Things...Phil 4:8 » Defending a Baby's Murder. Will You Be Consistent?
Defending a Baby's Murder. Will You Be Consistent?

Support Me


Powered by Pivot - 1.40.4: 'Dreadwind'
XML: Atom Feed
Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional
Valid CSS

Defending a Baby's Murder. Will You Be Consistent?

A story of the callous murder of a newborn baby  should rightfully make you angry. An 18-year-old mother, Sycloria Williams, went into an clinic for an abortion; only she gave birth too early. While her cervix was dilating, the baby fetus came out before it could be killed aborted. So they snipped the umbilical cord, and threw it in a biohazard bag.

Even people who think of abortion as a right of mothers to be defended at all costs are horrified. "It really disturbed me," said the president of Broward County NOW. The mother's attorney states, "The baby was treated like a piece of garbage." 

We should be disturbed, angry, and we should resolve to stop this kind of murder.

But let me attempt a defense for the abortion clinic:

  1. The baby was not viable anyway. This argument rings hollow now, doesn't it? Yet it is this same argument that is used to justify millions of 1st and 2nd trimester abortions anually. Nevertheless, there is no substantial difference between this murder and an abortion.
  2. The mother chose: The mother did not want the baby. An 18-year-old would have a very difficult time caring for this child. The mother went into the clinic wanting the baby fetus killed aborted. She had a choice to make and she made it. Isn't this what we defend and use to justify millions of abortions anually? Yet, it somehow doesn't seem like a valid defense when the clinic worker is on the stand asking how he/she could toss a living child into a biohazard bag to die. Nevertheless, there is no substantial difference between this murder and an abortion.
  3. What's the difference?: There is no substantial difference between this murder and an abortion. There was almost no difference between what would have been legal abortion and then what would be deemed murder and grounds for imprisonment and loss of medical license.
    • The baby changed location. It was inside the mother and then outside the mother. Should this affect personhood? No, location should not affect personhoood.
    • The baby's source of oxygen. One moment, the baby received oxygen in the blood from the mother, the next through its lungs. Should this affect personhood? No, source of gas exchange should not affect personhood.
    • Status under the law. One moment the killing was legal as abortion. The next moment, the killing would be called murder. Should this affect personhood? No, legal status should not affect personhood.
    • Our ability to perceive life. One moment the baby's movements, facial expressions, and very being was concealed inside the mother's body. The next, it was out for all to see. Personhood is hard to admit when it stares you in the face. Yet, out-of-sight-out-of-mind affects many moral decisions that we make. Should this affect personhood? No, others' ability to see should not affect personhood.

So my defense rests. The abortion clinic was simply being consistent with what it always does. Its job is to kill unwanted babies. They know that there is no significant deference between a fetus and a baby. So the clinic was simply being consistent.

Prolifers who are angered by this murder are being consistent. We are outraged and grieved by abortions; we are outraged and grieved by murder.

Will you be consistent? When you read the story you should rightly be saddened for a mother whose child was killed, grieved at the loss of an innocent life, and angered at those who could so callously throw a baby out like a piece of trash. But will you be consistent? If these things concerned you, are you concerned about abortion? If not, I ask you, why?

unbelievable! and yet I’m not surprised. In a world that has allowed their moral code to be so white-washed, we can expect nothing less and only pray and rest in the fact that He is making His name known through this.
by: Matt () (URL) - 05 1 '09 - 19:22
I can’t believe this , you call this consistant , i call it a load of shit ! A baby is a human being from the moment of conception, this clinic should be shut down and tired for murder!!!!!!!!
by: Jenn () - 23 2 '09 - 15:01
Je tenais à vous remercier pour ce blog génial! J’ai apprécié chaque peu de lui et je n’ai signet essayer de nouvelles choses, faire le chèque.
by: Adidas Wings () (URL) - 14 8 '12 - 22:37
Welcome to our Cheap Jordan Retro Shoes Online Store,we offer air jordan shoes,jordan 2013,nike air max shoes at big discount sale
by: Chad Swann (URL) - 14 4 '14 - 21:52
4 trackbackscheap air max shoes Think About These Things…Phil 4:8 Sent on 25 8 '18 - 09:45 , via cheap air max shoescheap air max shoes Think About These Things…Phil 4:8 Sent on 10 9 '18 - 09:20 , via heap nike shoescheap air max shoes Think About These Things…Phil 4:8 Sent on 12 9 '18 - 02:42 , via heap nike shoesbaby sleeping together Think About These Things…Phil 4:8 Sent on 22 9 '18 - 00:05 , via trendy diaper bagsTrackback link:

Remember personal info?

/ Textile

  ( Register your username / Log in )

Hide email:

Small print: All html tags except <b> and <i> will be removed from your comment. You can make links by just typing the url or mail-address.

Vital Statistics:

Title: Defending a Baby's Murder. Will You Be Consistent?
Date posted: 05 1 '09 - 17:31
Category: Adoption, Miscellanies, politics
Wordcount: 626 words
I Like It:: (vote) 30
I Hate it:: (vote) 29
Next entry:   » Free CD: Lampmode Gra…
Previous entry: « Desktop: My Grace Is …

Take Me Back to the Frontpage