The Mother is NOT the Victim in an Abortion
By Kevin Roeten (09/16/07)
Roe vs. Wade will be overturned. The question is no longer "if", but "when". But will the woman, the doctor, or both, be charged as the accessory, the accomplice, or the murderer of the child killed? What about a family member who cajoles and facilitates the abortion itself? These give some important reasons to have pro-life judges. If there is a pro-abortion judge, will anyone of the above party pay for the crime?
And, when Roe is overturned, the question of the legality of abortion goes directly to the states. Most will outlaw the heinous act, but there will be a few states, to be sure, who will vote to keep abortion legal—at least for awhile.
We must be very careful as to whom we label the victim here. Webster’s defines “victim” as “A person sacrificed, injured, or destroyed; or a person who dies or suffers as a result of voluntarily undertaking some enterprise or pursuit.” This definition makes things crystal clear. First, the baby dies and is destroyed posthaste---the victim. But the woman doesn’t die. In most cases, she wants the abortion to happen—possibly along with a host of others who may be equally complicit in the baby’s death.
No doubt, it is possible that the woman could be put under severe duress to have an abortion. She could be threatened with monetary losses, physical harm, or dissolution of the marriage(if one exists). Unfortunately, none of these comes even close to killing a human person.
That’s precisely why a judge needs to make a decision on the complicity of the parties involved. There may be cases where the woman need not be relegated to the “slammer”. But there are many cases that do exist for such a crime. Several reasons that abortions are done: 1)birth control; 2)trouble a child might be; 3)lack of money; 4)baby is unwanted; 5)baby has a perceived birth defect; 6)incest; 7)rape; etc…
In the cases of incest and rape, the child was totally innocent of the crime that initiated his/her life. So let’s “kill the baby to pay for the heinous crime”. Only convoluted thinking can rationalize that excuse. That same type of thinking believes that partial-birth abortion is actually an “emergency medical procedure.” It’s like they never heard of “C” section before. If they simply want to dispose of the baby, it’s not an “emergency medical procedure”.
Many women believe they are pressured into an abortion by desperate circumstances. But what could be so desperate that someone must die for it? What ever happened to the fact that if one does not want to get pregnant and even consider an abortion, she and he do not have to have sex? Too many seem to be slaves to primal urges. And most certainly, the term “pro-abortionist” fits so well, because every “pro-abortionist” wants the option to abort. If they don’t want to abort, they’re likely pro-life.
Abortion is something a woman allows to be done to herself. No one has a gun at her head to do such an act. Their may very well be those who help talk her into such an act, but a judge should decide exactly how ‘coerced’ she was, and who else was complicit in the killing.
“Victim” only applies to one person—the baby. Has anyone ever asked, or figured out exactly how much pain a baby will go through while being put to death? The inability to express that will go horribly unheeded because the baby is unable to speak for itself.
Katherine Lopez(Editor/National Review Online) seems to get caught in the same trap so many do. The baby is the victim here. Very rarely the woman is. Views such as the woman being the ‘victim’ in an abortion, belittles that life that was snuffed out. A woman can be forgiven for her crime. For the baby, that’s it. It doesn’t get a second chance. Let’s get our priorities straight, or minds will never be changed.
Kevin Roeten
http://kevinroeten.us/
(Printer friendly version) Email: Kevin Roeten
