Scott and the abortionist
Once upon a time in California there was a man who willfully took the life of an unborn child. Through an act of violence, the life of a little one was snuffed out.
What should his punishment be? Should he be tried in court for this killing, tried by a jury of his peers? And if it were found true that he committed this act, should he be convicted of murder? If so, should he then spend the rest of his life in prison or even go to death row?
Of course, this all happened to Scott Peterson. But except for how the baby was killed, what is the difference between what he did and what an abortionist does every day?
Scott Peterson will go to prison for the rest of his life, or to the death chamber.
The abortionist will go home to his family and watch TV.
posted by Ritter | 10:37 AM
6 Comments:
One difference between an abortionist and Scott Peterson is that Lacy Peterson wanted to keep her baby. That makes Scott a murderer and the abortionist a health-care provider. Interestingly, though, if the roles were reversed and Lacy wanted an abortion and Scott objected, only her wishes would have any legal standing. The law only recognizes the rights of the mother, never the father, whether the mother chooses life or chooses abortion.
Your point is a good one, though. We have become schizophrenic about the unborn fetus/baby -- it is a fetus until the mother wants to support it full-term, and only then does it become a baby. We are a greatly confused society.
Charlie at www.anotherthink.com
You know, I don't think there's anyone who is happy about abortion. Abortion is an attempt to keep a social malady -- unwanted children -- under control. It is a serious societal problem to have children come into the world that don't have their physical or emotional needs met. They are unhappy and their neediness usually comes back to haunt them and the people around them. And providing for a child's needs is a big task. Once someone decides to have a baby they have a huge, long-term emotional and financial responsibility in front of them. Some people are simply not up for it. They don't have the resources: emotional or physical.
Let's face it. Killing babies or anybody else is sick and wrong. But bringing a baby into horrible circumstances is also sick and wrong. Just because one is worse doesn't cancel out the wrongness of the other. Extremely needy people aren't the only ones who have abortions, but these needy people are the reason that abortion is around and legal. It's a fix that works for people who have no other options.
Is abortion a good solution to our societal problem? Hell no! I think these children do deserve to live, and do deserve to be happy. But I believe that doesn't just happen; it takes a lot of effort, and it isn't going to start happening just because people stop having abortions.
We have to offer a better solution if you want society to turn away from abortion. I guess what I'm saying is that it doesn't do as much good to say "where do we draw the line" as "what do we do about this?"
I personally think there needs to be a two-prong plan of attack in which the cause of unwanted pregnancies is tackled so that they are decreased in the first place, (this is tough and I'm not really sure where to get started on this) and an effective support system for those people who you want to decide against abortion: counselors, prenatal care, adoption services, counselors. This all takes time, love, and money. It takes giving of yourself the way Jesus gave of himself to the people who needed it.
*Sigh*. I think the legal and societal implications of abortion do need to be debated, as long as the legal, societal, spiritual, financial, etc. implications of uncared for children is also taken into account.
deinerpowell@hotmail.com
True, it is a sad thing when children are not cared for the way God intended. However, NO CHILD is conceived without God. Just read about all the barren women in the Bible. It is always with God's help that they conceived. That also includes those of us who are not barren. Want to stop the problem of unwanted pregnancies? How about quit having sex until you are ready to be pregnant! There's a novel idea that comes straight from scripture. The answers are out there...in the Bible that is!
abortion is legal in America- it is the lawful destruction of a fetus, and it is the WOMANS choice to have or not have an abortion. The difference between Scott Peterson and an abortionist is that the abortionist is preforming a legal medical procedure with the consent of the woman ,who made the choice to terminate the fetus. The abortionist is within the bounds of the law-therefore even if you were to consider the fetus alive it is sanctioned by the government, not unlike killing in war. Scott Peterson killed laci and in the process of killing her he terminated the fetus. Because it was not a abortion by definition it fits the definition of murder, the UNLAWFUL taking of another human life,-assuming you consider the fetus alive, therefore scott should be convicted of murder. of course this is assuming he commited the murders and that a fetus is a living thing, which are both up for debate
ross
"Abortion is an attempt to keep a social malady -- unwanted children -- under control."
That's a load of crap. The overwhelming majority of abortions performed are for CONVENIENCE and nothing more. They're done to stop an unplanned pregnancy. The average woman seeking abortion is 24, earns $24,000 annually, is as likely as not to have had a previous abortion, and is already a mother.
The problem is NOT unwanted children. The problem is that people, by nature, wish to avoid responsibility by escaping the consequences of their actions.
"of course this is assuming...that a fetus is a living thing, which [is] up for debate"
Again, a load of crap. There's certainly no debate today over whether a fetus is a living thing. The pro-choice crowd abandoned that line of reasoning a long time ago in favor of another: freedom. They realized that they couldn't convince anyone that a fetus is just a blob of tissue, so they moved on. Now the argument is that one "shouldn't push their morality" on another person.
Abortion kills babies, period. I find it amazing that people still think otherwise.
"The problem is NOT unwanted children. The problem is that people, by nature, wish to avoid responsibility by escaping the consequences of their actions."
You need to prove that facing the consequences of their actions is going to be good for the child and for society.
Post a Comment
<< Home