Gosnell and Castro cases expose inconsistency on right to life
In the state of Ohio, fetal homicide is against the law, and “[a]ll of Ohio’s homicide and assault statutes prohibit actions which kill or injure another person’s unborn child at any stage of pregnancy,” which is what Ariel Castro did not once, but five times. Therefore, after the women’s rescue and Castro’s arrest, babies who would otherwise be viewed as non-viable entities, legal to dispose of under the law, are now positioned to become the driving force behind a possible death sentence for Ariel Castro for “aggravated murder.”
And while Ohio has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, Castro being prosecuted for aggravated murder is sure to send a message to the rest of Pro-Choice America that, according to the Ohio justice system, these five children had the right to life….
Unlike with late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell, the media is in way too deep now to ignore Ariel Castro. The initial sensationalism of the story drew the pro-choice media in, thinking they were dealing exclusively with a sexual abuse/bondage/kidnapping case. Now it’s too late to back out, and the story has the potential to inspire a national debate about the inconsistency of a rationale that says murdering a fetus is wrong in some circumstances and perfectly acceptable in others.
~ Jeannie DeAngelis, Jeannie-ology, May 12
[HT: American Thinker; photos via philly.com and vivelohoy.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I really hate to say it, but it’s not actually inconsistent to believe that abortion should be legal but people should be prosecuted for killing a woman’s unborn baby without her consent. If you think about it, it’s really just an extension of the pro-choice mindset that the baby in and of his or herself isn’t worth anything, his or her worth is dependent on what the mother thinks about it. If she wants and loves that baby, his or her life is worth protecting, but if she doesn’t, he or she is “fetal tissue” and can be disposed of at will. Just an extension of the body autonomy argument, the mother’s rights are the only ones that matter.
What is inconsistent, however, is making the charge that is to be prosecuted “murder”, under this way of looking at the fetus as nothing but the mother’s property. How can property, with no right to life on it’s own, be murdered?
Do not underestimate the ability of the media to ignore the inconvenient stories.
Meanwhile, we need to help the public realize that the Law does recognize the humanity of the child in the womb — sometimes. Just like biological science and common sense do.
I agree that the unborn are still considered property by many.
When was the last time that people were considered property?
Didn’t turn out so well.
Honestly, when will we ever learn?
I do enjoy the “bait and switch” nuance of the story – getting taken in by the kidnapping/bondage/abuse angles and suddenly being faced with forced miscarriages = murder. Kind of amusing. On the other hand, the MSM is more than capable of ignoring this aspect of the story.
I’m afraid it will all just be seen as “it was murder because the women didn’t choose to kill their babies” rather than “killing babies before birth is murder”.
My step daughter is in People magazine …Amanda was her cousin. Her name is Tasheena Mitchell
I have the sort-of-hobby job of merchandising magazines at grocery and drugstores. I rarely read the magazines, but I made a point to read the PEOPLE story about the kidnapping victims and their reunions with their families.
I remember Tasheena’s picture, and how grateful she is to have her cousin back. Thank you, Heather, for sharing your family’s joy with us.
Eventually, when the time is right, please tell Amanda that her motherly love and that of the other victims has given great hope and renewed courage to Pro-Lifers everywhere. Tell them how many millions of us have such special admiration for them, and that we love them.
If you think about it, it’s really just an extension of the pro-choice mindset that the baby in and of his or herself isn’t worth anything, his or her worth is dependent on what the mother thinks about it.
Which would be a philosophical viewpoint, not based in science. Mom thinks I’m a human being – POOF! I’m a human being. Mom thinks I’m not – POOF! I’m not. I’m just “meat in a crock pot.”
Some extreme pro-choicers, like Obama, and abortionists like Gosnell, think this philosophy of wantedness extends to even AFTER a child has exited the womb and is breathing/showing signs of life. Some, like Singer, Giubilini and Minerva believe that philosophy should extend to the first year of life outside the womb, or even beyond. They don’t even think of it as “murder.”
But the truth is, it’s all the deliberate killing of a human being. The philosophical mumbo-jumbo pushed by the pro-“choice” movement – all while they claim to be scientific about it – is really what’s laughable.
So you never hold any morally inconsistent positions on anything.
You don’t support wars that inadvertently kill other people’s children with the intention of keeping yours safe. You don’t look the other way at Bangladeshi factory fires so your families can purchase things at WalMart on the cheap.
Im willing to bet you draw the lines between lives worth and not worth protecting, every day. Hypocritical much?
So you never hold any morally inconsistent positions on anything.
I really try not to.
You don’t support wars that inadvertently kill other people’s children with the intention of keeping yours safe. You don’t look the other way at Bangladeshi factory fires so your families can purchase things at WalMart on the cheap.
Because this is TOTALLY the same as encouraging and seeking out the deliberate killing of children to the tune of 4,000 a day in America alone. (Notice the terms “deliberate” and “inadvertently” in these statements.) Regardless of anyone’s position on war, these aren’t the same things.
Hypocritical much?
Because hypocrisy is THE ULTIMATE SIN in the liberal (oh, I’m sorry… “progressive”) mind. Right, Megan? You can rest well knowing that even though you paid a hitman to kill your child, at least you devalue all humans equally.
Lines in the sand again. Different intentions, same outcome. Some lives worth protecting, others not so much.
Different intentions, same outcome.
Intentions are important. Intentions are the difference between manslaughter and first degree murder. Intent to kill an innocent life (whether you’re Gosnell, Ariel Castro, or Blue Velvet) and an accidental casualty of war are two different things. BOTH lives are valuable. BOTH lives lost.
Do you believe that someone who accidentally kills another person should be treated differently than someone who commits premeditated murder? It’s not inconsistent to treat them differently. Intent to kill matters. Women who abort with full knowledge of what they are doing intended to kill. The abortionist intended to kill.
War is a completely different animal. I’m not pro-war. So many lives lost. I’m also not pro-death penalty. Not because people don’t do heinous things that are deserving of death, but because of what I have seen the death penalty do to otherwise civilized people. If unintentional killings affect us as a people, then certainly intentional ones do that to an exponentially greater extent.
Here’s the thing: Gosnell and Castro ARE the same. They intended to kill innocent children, and succeeded. Science says those children were human beings, REGARDLESS of whether they were wanted by their mothers. Gosnell wasn’t convicted because those moms came back and said, “Oh, I changed my mind… it was really a person that he killed!” We don’t even know if Castro’s victim wanted those pregnancies. Wantedness by the mothers, in these cases, does NOT matter, because the laws in those states claimed that society had an interest in protecting these children.
I don’t see this as being problematic for pro-choicers or even about abortion/ rights of the unborn.
This is about a technicality
People think what Castro did kidnapping and raping three children for a decade is worthy of death. But he only way we can give him the needle is if he find him guilty of murder, which is where the forced miscarriage comes in. It’s like getting Capone for tax evasion.
America’s sees this man as horrible because of what he did to those women, and wants him to get the most severe punishment under the law because of it
“Because hypocrisy is THE ULTIMATE SIN in the liberal (oh, I’m sorry… “progressive”) mind.”
True statement above ^^^!
Ironically, abortion advocates themselves don’t care about born children. They only use such examples to deflect off themselves. They can’t comprehend the dignity of all human beings. They think only useful, approval-stamped human beings are really human beings. They use gobbledyspeak to dehumanize children and call them things like “not actualized yet.” Like Dr. Nadal says, “Get well soon.”
Ironically, abortion advocates themselves don’t care about born children. They only use such examples to deflect off themselves. They can’t comprehend the dignity of all human beings. They think only useful, approval-stamped human beings are really human beings. They use gobbledyspeak to dehumanize children and call them things like “not actualized yet.”
True. But in their minds, WE are the ones who are inconsistent, when they are actually the ones, who, like Megan (BV), “draw lines in the sand.”
I always laugh when I hear them say that “pro-lifers don’t care about children after they’re born.” As a friend of mine said recently, “If I don’t take all the homeless into my house, does that mean I get to shoot them?” That is, in essence, what pro-choicers are saying… that if pro-lifers don’t solve all the other evils in the world, then they still get to kill some people.
I keep waiting for pro-choicers to start some pregnancy resource centers for moms who keep their babies. Gonna be waiting a while.
This is about a technicalityPeople think what Castro did kidnapping and raping three children for a decade is worthy of death. But he only way we can give him the needle is if he find him guilty of murder, which is where the forced miscarriage comes in. It’s like getting Capone for tax evasion.
TO YOU. Other people in the world care about even those icky rape babies and would like to see justice served for them, since they were every bit victims of this man’s crimes as their mother(s) were. More so, actually, since they were robbed of their entire lives instead of just 10 years. There will be no happy reunions with loving family members for them.
“BlueVelvet says:
May 16, 2013 at 12:17 pm
Lines in the sand again. Different intentions, same outcome. Some lives worth protecting, others not so much.”
Not in my opinion. I think ALL lives are worth protecting – unborn (and born) babies, terminally ill people, factory workers in Bangladesh, serial killers, soldiers, terrorists, you name it – for me, it’s not even a question – every HUMAN life is worth protecting, no matter the circumstance.
Thank you Del. I saw Tasheena yesterday. She is pro life too! Yes Amanda Berry gave birth to Castro’s baby on Christmas. Amanda loves that baby because it is hers! Tasheena said Amanda is not giving her daughter up for adoption. Proof that you can love a baby from rape. The monster impregnated them all so after he beat babies out of Michelle Knight they may change him with murder.
Amanda and the other girls are strong women ….I thought after 10 years she was dead.
This case happened right in my back yard. I’ve passed that street countless times in a decade. Who ever knew? Nothing short of amazing the women were alive.
Kel: We don’t even know if Castro’s victim wanted those pregnancies.
(Denise) Since Castro raped those women, it’s unlikely they were looking to GET pregnant.
You overlooked the point, which is that once they knew they were pregnant, did they desire to continue the pregnancies? Or was Castro merely being an “abortion provider” in a sense, for Michelle? IT DOESN’T MATTER whether or not they wanted their pregnancies to continue, Denise. In the eyes of the law, this man murdered those five children before they were born.
I’m not saying this woman didn’t want her children. I’m saying that in the eyes of the state of Ohio, it apparently doesn’t matter whether or not her children were “wanted.”
“I believe most women prefer getting pregnant by men they love and respect, usually men to whom they are happily married.”
I’m sure you’ll find some random outlier who will totally alter this belief. Then we’ll be hearing, “I know a woman who prefers to get pregnant through rape. No seriously. I do.”
As to the issue at hand, the only consistent charge for an abortion supporter is assault of the mother. If a baby is not a human life then it can not be assaulted or murdered apart from the mother.
“I agree that the unborn are still considered property by many.
When was the last time that people were considered property?
Didn’t turn out so well.
Honestly, when will we ever learn?”
Mary Ann, I invite you, and everyone here, to see and comment on my latest blog entry, “Slavery and Abortion”, at
http://prolifeeration.blogspot.com/
Killing a baby in it’s mothers womb, whether by hitting the mother in the stomach or by elective abortion, is murder. There is no difference. Any other view is inconsistent.
And pro-choice tactics of deflecting and changing the subject don’t make it any less inconsistent or any less wrong to think that one is murder and the other is a “choice”.
By the way just because something is a choice doesn’t make it okay. People choose to commit crimes all the time. Ideally, they still get punished; the fact that they made a choice does not get them off.
Can Castro visit a baby he sired through rape if he decides he wants visitation?
I’ve read that only 17 states provide for automatic legal termination of paternal rights because of rape conception — and those 17 only if the father was convicted.