Sometimes, a news story grabs your attention and demands a response…or at least a good old-fashioned rant, one of which I hope to achieve in the next few paragraphs.

Two teens in Armada, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit, may face manslaughter charges, after allegedly finding a cheap alternative to a legal abortion. The alleged father of the “fetus” allegedly hit the alleged mother of the “fetus” in the abdomen with a baseball bat over the course of several weeks, allegedly. The predictable result was, not allegedly, a dead baby.

Eric Smith, county prosecutor of Macomb County stated, “The length at which these two 16-year-olds went to abort this unborn child is just disturbing.” Disturbing indeed. I’m sure Macomb County has a nice, comfortable abortion clinic where these two teens could have killed their baby more humanely. If the two would have just had the good sense to let a doctor kill the baby, all of this could have been avoided. Perhaps the two just couldn’t scrape together the few hundred dollars that a typical clinic charges to allow the mother to have a “choice.” Maybe the cost of the abortive process was the main determining factor in their “choice” to use the “do-it-yourself” method. But how could abortion providers stay in business if they just gave them to everyone who wants one, whether they can pay or not? Surely there needs to be some sort of ticket price so the doctors can rest their weary heads at night. The joy of helping others overcome their awful circumstances doesn’t exactly pay the bills, now does it? Abortion advocates inform us that if abortion-on-demand is outlawed, back-alley, “coat-hanger” abortions will follow in quick succession. Did I miss something, or is abortion still legal? Even with on-demand abortions readily available to all who demand (with cash in hand, of course,) we still have news reports detailing barbaric acts such as this one.

Also notice Smith’s choice of the words “unborn child,” as opposed to the rest of the article, which uses the medically preferred and politically correct label of “fetus.” Why does Smith choose his words so unwisely? It could be because, as county prosecutor, he is already slanting his case against the two infidels, but I think it also has something to do with the fact that the Michigan State Police dug up the remains of the “fetus” from the teen girl’s parents’ back yard and it looked remarkably like a little human baby (since fetus is Latin for offspring, it’s really not a major surprise.)

Which brings up an interesting point. How could these two be charged with “manslaughter?” The victim, by necessity, would have to be human, no ifs, ands or buts. The prevailing logic touted by Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice organizations that defend late-term abortions is that the “fetus” is nothing more than a “mass of tissue.” The “growth” is not really a person until it is viable outside of the womb of the mother. Since the “fetus” in question was still inside the mother and certainly not wanted, either inside or outside the mother, I find it rather illogical to claim “manslaughter” in this instance. If pro-choice supporters actually lived consistently with their claimed beliefs, they should send a cavalry of lawyers to the defense of these two up and coming “growth-removal specialists.”

If pro-choice supporters actually lived consistently with their claimed beliefs, they should send a cavalry of lawyers to the defense of these two up and coming “growth-removal specialists.”

But isn’t the health of the mother actually the most important factor in all of this? This was a major argument by those against a federal ban on partial-birth abortions. The mother’s health should be paramount in all cases, or so goes the logic, if a baby needs to be sacrificed to save the mother’s life, so be it. Well, since the mother in this situation is healthy enough to stand trial for potential manslaughter charges, I guess that might not be entirely true. “But,” they would say, “this was not a ‘legitimate abortion.’ After all, a trained professional would never have to resort to using a baseball bat – he would use forceps and sterilized equipment, like any respectable doctor. You can’t honestly compare a constitutionally-protected medical procedure to a desperate act by two teenagers.” Although this was not what the 1973 Supreme Court justices had envisioned, the results are the same: a dead baby and an emotionally-scarred mother. Killing a baby in a sterile, medically safe environment is just as much murder as what these two misled teens did in an attempt to cover their sin. Why not look at the bright side – they have learned their school lessons. They have been taught that they are nothing more than a stroke of luck in a random world of evolutionary hit and miss, but now, however, they’ll reap the consequences for acting in accord with what they have been taught. G.K. Chesterton wrote of the moral climate in 1905, “In the fifteenth century men cross-examined and tormented a man because he preached some immoral attitude; in the nineteenth century we feted and flattered Oscar Wilde because he preached such an attitude, and then broke his heart in penal servitude because he carried it out.”[1] This is where we stand in our enlightened attitudes of 2004: we want to have moral relativity and no absolutes, until that reality becomes too grim and sinister to bear. Don’t expect to hear the pro-choice crowd chiming in on this case anytime soon; it would quickly reveal their true agenda.

[1] Chesterton, Heretics, p.3