Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
The one thing I struggle with this case is the difference between what was legal. Kill the baby prior to birth and what he did kill the baby after birth. I have a huge issue that the location of a baby can make what he did legal or not. If society is comfortable with a late term abortion why does it make a difference where it occurred. All of the justifications for late term abortions usually being fetus health quality of life arguments are just as valid before and after birth.
If the intent of the patient was to go in and have an abortion and the end result was a dead fetus and a healthy patient why does what happen in between entering and leaving the clinic matter in the eyes of the law.
Now in this case he broke the abortion law for late term abortions so deserves to be punished.
For the record I am against abortion in most circumstances but favour the legal right to choose.
|
And that is what is so sick about this debate, and why the pro-choice orgs are desperately avoiding this case and not giving it any press. The only thing this monster truly did, was wait for the head to pass an additional 3 centimeters to exit the vagina, and kill it on the table. As opposed to breaching the birth, and sucking it's brain out with a vacuum cleaner while all but it's head are outside the womb. I guess you could say this guy was actually more humane than most late term abortionists, and did it with a clean cut, as opposed to making a brain omelet.
The line is so fine, and late term abortions are so close to what this guy was doing, that my guess is pro-choice orgs and liberal media, is terrified this will re-open the late term murder debate. There has been debate that this guy could be the worlds greatest serial killer if they ever get an admission to how many children were killed like some sort of barnyard animals. This should have had a MASSIVE media following.