February 16, 2013

Straining out a gnat...

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!
(Matthew 23:23–24 ESV)

Here is the latest version of "straining out a gnat" in America's abortion debate. Lauren Enriquez writes: 

Another story out of Houston just this week ended more tragically. An unidentified woman was hospitalized due to major hemorrhaging following what was revealed to be a self-induced abortion. First she told authorities that her baby was wrapped in a blanket in the dumpster, prompting a massive search of her apartment complex. The woman later admitted that the child was in a different location, where it was subsequently recovered by police.
The double-standard in this unbelievably sad story is that it is only an autopsy of the child’s body that will indicate whether or not this mother can be charged with a crime. Paraphrasing a Houston Police Dpt sergeant, the Houston Chronicle said, “no charges have been filed in the case because it is unknown whether the fetus was alive or viable at the time of birth.”
That means, if the child was born dead (following a ‘successful’ abortion), then the mother cannot be charged with a crime, since abortion (which, by definition, means that a dead baby was delivered after being killed in utero) is legal. If, however, it was born alive (the approximate age of the child, between 20-25 weeks, suggests that viability was a definite possibility), then the mother could be charged with a crime.
The takeaway: Either way, the baby was murdered by its mother; her intention was the same all along, but the question of where the child died—in utero or out—will determine whether or not a crime was committed.
It’s time to hold the pro-abortion community accountable for the convenient lapses in logic that propagate laws based on shoddy reasoning.

HT: Tim Challies

No comments: