Scott Tibbs
blog post
January 7th, 2004
Back to Archived blog posts.
Here is another example of the cognitive dissonance that the American legal system has toward unborn children. A 16-year-old boy is accused of "hitting his girlfriend in the stomach repeatedly over a two-week period" in order to cause her to lose the child. He will be charged with "intentional conduct against a pregnancy or stillbirth, which is a felony." His girlfriend, however, will not be charged. The names of the juveniles were not released.
It makes no sense that the boyfriend can be charged with a crime while the girlfriend cannot. Both were equal partners in the termination of an unborn baby's life. While the intent of the law was to provide extra punishment for a criminal who assaults a pregnant woman, this case does not fall into that description. The law should have been written to include that possibility when it passed the Michigan Legislature.
This tragedy should make people think. How is this case different from a girl who goes to Planned Parenthood to have an abortion? How are the actions of the boyfriend different than the actions of an abortionist? The only difference is the method used to kill the unborn child.
Either an unborn child is worthy of protection or it is not. It makes no sense that someone who causes the death of an unborn child against her will should be subject to punishment while someone who causes the death of an unborn child with the mother's consent is protected by the law.
Most people have an innate understanding that an unborn child is a human being and is worthy of protection under the law. But people have been so brainwashed by "pro-choice" rhetoric that they are willing to support laws punishing harm against child in some cases while vehemently opposing other laws protecting the unborn.