Is it murder for a doctor and a mother to kill a baby minutes after its birth if its mother consents? You're damn right it is!
On this issue, those who believe in the right to life cannot compromise.
If you intentionally kill your mother without lawful justification, you have committed matricide. The act of intentionally killing one's father without lawful justification is patricide. Killing one's brother is fratricide. A parent who kills his son or daughter without justification commits filicide.
But are matricide, patricide, fratricide and filicide anything less than murder? Or does murder cease to be murder when we give it a fancy Latin name? Do we "justify” a father's murder of his 2-year-old son simply because we label the strangling of the child filicide? Do we excuse a married woman when she stabs her husband to death in his sleep, as "merely matricide?"
If the killing relieves "stress" or "anxiety," is that "lawful justification?"
In this country, a person who kills another person without lawful justification commits murder if, in performing the acts which cause death, he either:
1. Intends to kill or do great bodily harm to the other person, or
2. Knows that such acts will cause death to the other person, or
3. Knows that such acts create a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to the other.
The principle lawful justification is self defense. In Illinois a person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another.
On Jan. 28, Democratic state Rep. Kathy Tran testified before the Virginia House in support of a proposed bill to remove abortion restrictions. She was questioned by Todd Gilbert, the Republican chairman of a Virginia House committee.
Gilbert: "How late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated it would impair the mental health of a woman?"
Tran: "The physical health ...."
Gilbert: "I'm talking about the mental health."
Tran: "So, I mean through the third trimester. The third trimester goes up to 40 weeks."
Gilbert: "So, to the end of the third trimester?"
Tran: "Yes, I don't think we have a limit in the bill."
Gilbert: "So, where it is obvious a woman is about to give birth ... where she has physical signs she is about to give birth .... Would that be the point at which she could request an abortion if it was so certified? She's dilating ...."
Tran: "Mr. Chairman, that would be a decision that the doctor, the physician and the woman would make at that point ..."
Gilbert: "I understand that. I am asking if your bill allows that. "
Tran: "My bill would allow that, yes."
In the hours that followed, Virginia's Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam gave a radio interview in
On this issue, those who believe in the right to life cannot compromise.
If you intentionally kill your mother without lawful justification, you have committed matricide. The act of intentionally killing one's father without lawful justification is patricide. Killing one's brother is fratricide. A parent who kills his son or daughter without justification commits filicide.
But are matricide, patricide, fratricide and filicide anything less than murder? Or does murder cease to be murder when we give it a fancy Latin name? Do we "justify” a father's murder of his 2-year-old son simply because we label the strangling of the child filicide? Do we excuse a married woman when she stabs her husband to death in his sleep, as "merely matricide?"
If the killing relieves "stress" or "anxiety," is that "lawful justification?"
In this country, a person who kills another person without lawful justification commits murder if, in performing the acts which cause death, he either:
1. Intends to kill or do great bodily harm to the other person, or
2. Knows that such acts will cause death to the other person, or
3. Knows that such acts create a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to the other.
The principle lawful justification is self defense. In Illinois a person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another.
On Jan. 28, Democratic state Rep. Kathy Tran testified before the Virginia House in support of a proposed bill to remove abortion restrictions. She was questioned by Todd Gilbert, the Republican chairman of a Virginia House committee.
Gilbert: "How late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated it would impair the mental health of a woman?"
Tran: "The physical health ...."
Gilbert: "I'm talking about the mental health."
Tran: "So, I mean through the third trimester. The third trimester goes up to 40 weeks."
Gilbert: "So, to the end of the third trimester?"
Tran: "Yes, I don't think we have a limit in the bill."
Gilbert: "So, where it is obvious a woman is about to give birth ... where she has physical signs she is about to give birth .... Would that be the point at which she could request an abortion if it was so certified? She's dilating ...."
Tran: "Mr. Chairman, that would be a decision that the doctor, the physician and the woman would make at that point ..."
Gilbert: "I understand that. I am asking if your bill allows that. "
Tran: "My bill would allow that, yes."
In the hours that followed, Virginia's Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam gave a radio interview in
which he supported delegate Tran's bill, and even went a step further.
“So in this particular example if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what
would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable.
The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and
then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”
Note what Northam said: "The infant would be delivered .... kept comfortable." It would then be up to the mother and the doctors to decide whether a baby should be killed.
At the time established by Northam, we are not talking about an embryo, or a fetus. We are talking about a completely born baby, a human person.
What Northam would allow is murder. Infanticide, no less than matricide, patricide and filicide, is murder. It is the intentional killing of another person without lawful justification.
The child is born. The mother survived. Where is the genuine threat of "imminent death or great bodily harm" to the mother at that point in time?
Or are we now going to permit mothers and fathers to justify murdering their children because the child creates stress, anxiety, or other emotional or financial problems for the family? And if you are justified in murdering your newborn because it cause stress or anxiety, why can't a father logically and justifiably kill his daughter to eliminate the stress caused by her marrying a Christian?
The very same progressives who would shower any 1-year-old child who crosses our southern border with free attorneys and a full panoply of Constitutional rights would deny those very same rights to any other child born in Virginia.
Once we deny the personhood of a baby that has just been born, we are no better than slave holders and Nazis. Killing Jews and babies without lawful justification is murder.
Posted: QCOline.com February 7, 2019
Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea
Note what Northam said: "The infant would be delivered .... kept comfortable." It would then be up to the mother and the doctors to decide whether a baby should be killed.
At the time established by Northam, we are not talking about an embryo, or a fetus. We are talking about a completely born baby, a human person.
What Northam would allow is murder. Infanticide, no less than matricide, patricide and filicide, is murder. It is the intentional killing of another person without lawful justification.
The child is born. The mother survived. Where is the genuine threat of "imminent death or great bodily harm" to the mother at that point in time?
Or are we now going to permit mothers and fathers to justify murdering their children because the child creates stress, anxiety, or other emotional or financial problems for the family? And if you are justified in murdering your newborn because it cause stress or anxiety, why can't a father logically and justifiably kill his daughter to eliminate the stress caused by her marrying a Christian?
The very same progressives who would shower any 1-year-old child who crosses our southern border with free attorneys and a full panoply of Constitutional rights would deny those very same rights to any other child born in Virginia.
Once we deny the personhood of a baby that has just been born, we are no better than slave holders and Nazis. Killing Jews and babies without lawful justification is murder.
Posted: QCOline.com February 7, 2019
Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea
No comments:
Post a Comment