A Virginia woman who shot herself in the stomach, killing her unborn child, has had charges against her dismissed by a judge:
Prosecutors say that on the morning she was scheduled to give birth, Skinner drove to an auto dealer's parking lot, took a gun, and shot herself in the belly, killing the fetus in an act of self-abortion. Skinner was charged with carrying out an illegal abortion... "I couldn't sleep that morning, and I got up out of bed. I got dressed and grabbed my gun. I was having contractions - so scared out of my mind," Skinner said in a written statement to authorities. "I got somebody to load the gun, because I didn't know how. I got in the car... The gun went off." After Skinner pulled the trigger, she called 911 and told the operator she had gotten into an argument with a man named Travis, who then shot her in the stomach.
The judge, W. R. Carter, apparently was persuaded by the defense lawyer's argument that "the law did not make it a crime for a mother to cause her own abortion."
Give the judge an "A" for intellectual consistency, if nothing else. He clearly understands the inexorable logic of abortion. An abortion is intended to result in a dead baby. By whose agency that death occurs is really a peripheral issue. If the woman wants the unborn baby dead, then so be it. In the end, whether a bullet causes it or a suction machine is really just a matter of hygiene and sanitation, nothing more.
Note the way the story is framed in the article. All the usual pro-abortion tropes are there: She was "poor" and "desperate". And, to compound matters, "her boyfriend wouldn't pay for an abortion." The cad.
And note also the way the writer breathlessly intones with faux horror: "Then she did the unthinkable."
The thing is, in an abortion culture such as ours, such actions are indeed quite thinkable. Our society finds the death of an unborn child at the hands of an abortionist not only thinkable, but rather pedestrian. 4000 such deaths are thought of and carried out in our nation every day, and most of us don't even notice. The only reason we don't think of it is that it is so commonplace.
And, of course, there is the reliable pro-abortion spokesperson, in this case from an organization calling itself "Advocates for Pregnant Women" (talk about an Orwellian name!), telling us that the "solution" to this problem is Medicaid funding of abortions. The real "solution" to this problem in the mind of these "Advocates" is a dead baby. They would prefer that women use less noisy and messy methods than this woman chose. Again, just a question of hygiene and sanitation.
She portrays herself, and the abortion advocates are happy to portray her, as not having "any choices". But it seems to me that even at first glance there were several "choices" she could have made differently:
She could have chosen not to have sex with a man who was unwilling/unable to take responsibility for his behavior.
She could have chosen not to have sex with a man to whom she was not married.
She could have chosen (mirabile dictu!) to wait till marriage to have sex, then begun a family in a stable and loving home.
She could have chosen to seek help with her pregnancy from the myriad of churches and pro-life organizations (such as Birthright) who offer assistance to unwed mothers.
She could have chosen to wait just a few more hours, deliver the baby, and then give him/her up for adoption, where he/she would have found a loving home.
These are just the few "choices" open to her that are apparent at first glance. No doubt further reflection would reveal more.
Now, some may say, "she was abused and frightened!". OK, granting that, she still did nothing for several months. Was she paralyzed by fear continuously for several months straight? Somehow I doubt it.
No, her actions have all the appearance of premeditation. And premeditated actions are not, by definition, the product of fear-driven impulse. Her attempt to cover up what she really did by lying further demonstrates her guilty intent.
The next step from here, which the logic of abortion will inexorably demand, will be that mothers will be able to strangle their newborn children minutes or hours after birth. Heck, Peter Singer holds that parents, in some circumstances, should have the right to kill their children up to 28 days from birth. We've already seen cases where girls have killed or abandoned their newborn babies and have received light sentences or have been dismissed by hung juries.
The article attempts to portray this woman as a victim. And she may indeed be a victim of abuse, ignorance, poor education, etc. But compared to the victimization of her murdered, defenceless, nearly-born child, her plight pales in comparison. And a society in which large numbers of people can't see that is a society in grave danger.