We go to a butcher to have our pigs and cows slaughtered. We call them bacon and steak and our hands stay clean. We have determined that abortion is a woman’s choice – her choice alone. She decides whether she wants to carry that life inside her. But it is a life no matter what we call it – a baby. At what point does it become unreasonable or unethical for her to terminate that life? We have left that up to her and her alone. We call this her right. So be it – but there is not a shred of logic or reason that I could fathom that anyone else should have that choice besides her. At what point does it become criminal for a violent maniac to terminate her baby’s life? In Canada it doesn’t.
A homicidal weirdo can violently erase that choice, that life, and suffer not so much as a parking ticket for his blatant and unquestionably horrific intentions.
And we call these woman’s rights?
A woman should have her choices protected. That too should be her right. What is happening here is the exact opposite of that. How is it so impossible for those that stand so stoically against protecting a pregnant woman with laws to protect her choice, her baby, that they are blind to their own contradiction?
They are those that will tell you we cannot protect them because it will take away from them. It seems as though anyone that opposes a law to protect unborn victims of violent crimes is very quick to regurgitate the “slippery slope” argument. Do they realize here that someone took away a woman’s choice? Do they realize that they are condoning the fact that there is no consequence to doing so? Do they realize that a homicidal deviant will not be punished for being just that? For the life he took and for the choice he robbed her of?
I have an idea. Let’s call things what they are. Let’s say that for anyone other than the mother or a medical practitioner commissioned by the mother to murder a baby in utero is illegal. Let’s call it murdering a person – because that’s what it is. This way, a woman’s choice to do what she will with her own reproductive system remains the same and anyone who kills her baby against her will, will be charged with murder.
Blunt, but like I said, let’s call things what they are…
I waited for Molly. I prepared for Molly. As a man it’s hard to quantify this in more than practical terms. But I watched her mother bubbling with the joy that came from the feeling of carrying her and being one with her. In ways that I could only imagine, I watched Cassie experience our daughter. I waited for her personality, but Cassie felt it. I waited to hold her, but Cassie held her always. Less than ten weeks. I better have everything done by then. I love her and will show her when she is here. But Cassie showed her the whole time. There were the two of them – two of them.
Molly was life and Cassie – the best person and truest account that we have to convey that fact – is gone.
Now, I will never get to hold Molly in my arms and tell her I love her. How could it be that because I never got to hold her and tell her I love her, the accused will not be charged with her death?
This was not Cassie’s choice. I don’t know how to put it more simply than that.
This is a picture of our daughter Molly at 5 months in the womb. No thoughts of death, only life and future.
I challenge the ARCC to respond to this.
