Abortion and its logical consequences.

It's not even a caricature

Extremely tragic but at the same time instructive story from EWTN.

In Mexico, several women are processed for killing their own babies after birth. The feminist organisation protecting their interests (“Centro Las Libres”, which unless I am mistaken means “Centre of the Free Ones”, tells you something already…) claims that the mothers should be convicted not for homicide, but for……. illegal abortion.

Now I know that abortion is in itself the killing of a life, but I certainly can say whether he who has been killed was unborn or born. This seems to escape the “free ones” for whom the killing of one’s own baby (born alive and breathing and subsequently deliberately killed) is pretty much the same as, well, an abortion of kind.

The reasoning goes to a great length to explain the logic of the abortionists (as the “free ones” most certainly are), but leaves room for some disquieting questions.

If a mother can kill a foetus unpunished, they seem to think, why should the killing of their own babies be considered so differently? The mother could have legally killed the foetus up to a certain point in time and she would have only committed a less gravely punished offence after that time. Why then punish her for homicide if she decides to “abort” her baby after, ahem, the foetus happened to breathe? Isn’t it undeniably true that the right to kill her own baby has been ….. given to her by law?

Paradoxically, the reasoning is less absurd than it would appear, in the sense that it enlightens the absurdity of a right to abort. There can be no doubt that most Western legal systems allow the killing of a human life to go entirely unpunished, whilst severely punishing the mother for doing what she was perfectly allowed to do until a few months before.

The mothers have obviously been convicted for homicide because the law says that they are not the owners of the baby’s life. Exactly this is the point. If the mother is not the owner of the baby’s life after birth, how can she be the owner of the baby’s life before birth? If a legislator is Nazi to the point of deciding that a mother is allowed to kill her own child, is it so surprising that the feminists group above mentioned would claim for every mother the right to kill her own new-born baby without incurring in a conviction for homicide? And if a legislator doesn’t want to be Nazi after the child’s birth, why is it Nazi before that event? Where’s the logic?

Who is thinking more logically here, the feminists asking the legislator to continue to allow what it already allows (or punishes less severely) or the legislator providing a strong defense for the life of the unborn whilst totally ignoring that he was a life even before being born?

I fully agree with you: the defense of the women attempted by the feminist group is atrocious, appalling, undeniably Nazi and utterly oblivious of the importance and dignity of life in front of the oh so important convenience of the mother. But so is abortion, which is fully legal.

I hope that this will open the eyes of some people in Mexico and abroad. Sometimes the atrocity one is not ready to accept is the way of opening one’s eyes toward the atrocity one has been ready to condone for too long.


Posted on August 18, 2010, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 4 Comments.

  1. “In Mexico, several women are processed for killing their own babies after birth.”

    No doubt we’ll soon hear demands from feminists to legalise “fourth term abortions”.

    In point of fact, as far as I’m aware, influential bioethicists and moral philosophers such as Jonathan Glover and Peter Singer argue that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with infanticide

    Isn’t is reassuring to know that Peter Singer is paid a handsome salary to teach moral philosophy at the Ivy League, Princeton University?

    • Omvendt,

      I am not surprising at hearing about the “influential philosophers”. Infanticide is the logical continuation of abortion exactly as the legalisation of incest and beastiality are the logical continuation of legalising sodomy.

      One can only hope that people will wake up and understand the scale of the abomination.


  2. The last sentence of the EWTN story is a bit puzzling:

    “Chief Justice Raquel Barajas Monjaras rejected any likelihood that the cases would be re-opened but said an analysis by the United Nations could possibly be permitted.”

    Are these feminazis planning to appeal to the United Nations?? What could be the possible outcome of a UN review of the case? I’ll bet the UN won’t want to touch this one with a nine-foot pole!

    • Mimi,
      I think this is one of those fashionable “human rights” thingies meant to give jobs to third-world leftists. I can’t imagine any serious country obeying to their “sentences”. It is nowadays very much in fashion to say that whatever atrocity is not allowed to one goes against his “human rights”.

      Braccia rubate all’agricultura*, as we say in Italy.


      *”arms stolen to agricultural work”.

%d bloggers like this: