Court uses word tricks to deny humanity
A couple of weeks ago, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a woman who takes drugs during her pregnancy is not guilty of “child abuse,” as that is described under the Child Protective Services Law of Pennsylvania (CPSL), which holds that child abuse involves “intentionally, knowingly or recklessly … causing bodily injury to a child through any recent act or failure to act” or “creating a reasonable likelihood of bodily injury to a child through any recent act or failure to act.”
The majority of five justices held that the act could not be applied to a “fetus,” colloquially known by people with a soul as an “unborn child,” because, the CPSL does not consider an unborn child to be “a human person” worthy of protection. That’s not surprising, since Roe v. Wade made it legal to dehumanize whatever it is that a pregnant woman is carrying in her womb.
As the state court noted, “The plain language of the CPSL requires the existence of a child at the time of the allegedly abusive act in order for the actor to be a ‘perpetrator’ and for the act to constitute ‘child abuse’.”
This was the key point. The state Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Christine Donohue, made it quite clear that not only was the mother not guilty of harming her child, she could never be held responsible for hurting that child as long as it was still in utero. That’s because the court wanted to drive home the point that until the child emerges, head to toe, from momma’s body, it has no legal standing. Therefore, you cannot abuse a child that does not exist.
This is the reason lots of people hate my breed, we lawyer types. We are trained to use words to trick people into believing that what is before their eyes, or what science teaches, or what common sense commands, is false. It’s like the Wizard in “The Wizard of Oz,” telling Dorothy and crew to “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” The highest court in this commonwealth told us to pay no attention to the child in the womb. It’s not real. It’s not life. It doesn’t count.
The problem is, the type of person who supports abortion rights is quite willing to change his or her mind if it advances another agenda. For example, while a woman might not be pregnant with a “human” for the purposes of “reproductive freedom,” there are states that have fetal homicide laws on their books. That’s when someone harms a pregnant woman, and if the child in utero is killed, the perpetrator can be charged with the “child’s” death.
The term “fetal homicide” always makes me smirk, because how exactly can you kill something that isn’t alive in the first place? I mean, a fetus is just an inanimate object, according to those who support abortion rights. It’s nothing more than a piece of plastic, an unfinished picture, a plant. The abortion supporters might go so far as to say, well, it is a living thing, but it’s not exactly human (which always makes me roll my eyes because I’ve never seen a woman give birth to a pizza). And when you call them on that fact, the very clear and controlling principle that a woman who is pregnant is pregnant with a human, not a puppy or a calf, they will pivot and say, well, it’s not a “person.”
That is the pivot the state Supreme Court made, as in, you can’t abuse a “non-person.”
The most recent example of the hypocrisy of abortion supporters is what just happened in Arizona, where a young woman who had been comatose for a decade just gave birth to a child. Obviously, she could not have consented to having sexual relations because she had very little brain activity. She was raped, and I hope that when they find the man who did this to her, he is castrated, and then drawn and quartered. There is no place for that vile beast on this Earth (yes, I know, not a very Christian or pro-life thought, but I never said I was entirely consistent).
The thing I find particularly intriguing is that everyone is ready to hold this poor woman’s assailant guilty of rape when he’s finally found. And yet, I cannot tell you how many times I have been told by supporters of abortion rights that a fetus is not a person until the mother says it is, or at least until it can reason for itself. Brain waves, apparently, are necessary to the humanity of the creature in utero. And so if brain waves and reasoning ability are the attributes of being a human person protected by the laws, why can a person who causes the death of a fetus be held criminally responsible for the death of a “person?”
And more importantly, why is the rapist of a woman who has no discernible brain activity liable for a crime against a “person?” Isn’t someone who can’t reason not real? Isn’t a fetus that is abused in utero not a child, not a victim?
Or is it that we have situational ethics, situational morality? It’s OK for the mother or the abortionist to kill the fetus, because that’s not a person, but when a third party does it, a child miraculously appears. It’s not OK to look at the unborn child as the victim of abuse, but a woman who has been raped is indeed a victim and her assailant can be held criminally liable even though she has no independent ability to think or reason.
I’m sorry, but that makes no sense to anyone accept the most jaded and immoral creatures. I wish they’d start paying attention to the man behind the curtain.