Of Cats, Slaves and the Unborn Child

When a court says something is “legal," does that make it “moral?” For the sake of discussion, consider three quite disparate things: cruelty to animals, abortion and slavery.

On May 2, this paper ran an article about a former Galva resident who used a pellet gun to shoot a cat in the eye, and who was charged with Aggravated Cruelty to Animals, a Class 4 felony (which carries the possibility of 1-3 years imprisonment).

I have no sympathy for people who shoot out the eyes of cats. For me, the conduct should be illegal. I also think it’s immoral. But there is another "cruelty" -- that to a viable unborn child -- that shocks me far more.


In Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), the U.S. Supreme Court wrote "Abortion methods vary depending to some extent on the preferences of the physician ... the term of the pregnancy and the resulting stage of the unborn child’s development.

"Between 85 and 90 percent of the approximately 1.3 million abortions performed each year in the United States take place in the ... first trimester.

"Of the remaining abortions ..., most occur in the second trimester. The surgical procedure referred to as “dilation and evacuation” or “D&E” is the usual abortion method in this trimester. Although individual techniques for performing D&E differ, the general steps are the same.

"The doctor ... inserts grasping forceps through the woman’s cervix and into the uterus to grab the fetus. The doctor grips a fetal part with the forceps and pulls it back through the cervix and vagina, continuing to pull even after meeting resistance from the cervix. The friction causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the woman. The process of evacuating the fetus piece by piece continues until it has been completely removed. A doctor may make 10 to 15 passes with the forceps to evacuate the fetus in its entirety ...

Have you sympathy for that fetus? Since Roe v. Wade, women have had the legal right to abortion. The fetus generally has had no rights; merely a duty to die.

One-hundred and fifty years ago, Abe Lincoln, during his Galesburg debate with Senator Stephen A. Douglas for the open Illinois U.S. Senate seat, drew a distinction between legality and morality. For Lincoln, slavery was a "legal right," but not a "moral right." For Lincoln, slavery was a moral wrong.

"Every thing that emanates from Sen. Douglas, or his coadjutors, ... carefully excludes the thought that there is anything wrong in slavery -- that there is anything whatsoever wrong in slavery.

"If you will take the Judge's speeches -- his declaration that he "doesn't care whether slavery is voted up or down" -- you will see at once that this is perfectly logical, if you do not admit that slavery is (morally) wrong.

"If you do admit that it is (morally) wrong, Judge Douglas cannot logically say he doesn't care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down.


"Judge Douglas declares that if any community wants slavery they have a right to have it. He can say that logically, if he says that there is no wrong in slavery; but if you admit that there is a wrong

in it, he cannot logically say that anybody has a (legal) right to do (moral) wrong."

Now, substitute the word "abortion" for the word "slavery" in Lincoln's speech.

A cat is not a person. Yet, our laws protect cats. A fetus, even if viable (even one minute before birth), is not a person -- but only in a legal or "constitutional sense" (because it is not yet born). Medically and scientifically, that fetus is unquestionably a human person. Since the fetus carried both maternal and paternal DNA, it is a human person distinct from either parent.

So, should a cat have greater protections in our courts than second and third trimester unborn children who are "viable?”

The slave owner closed his eyes to the moral question. Are those who demand "abortion on demand" doing the same?

Posted: QCOline.com May 12, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea