She is now a healthy baby, bouncing about, playing with bubbles in the bathtub, and taking in everything this mysterious world she entered has to offer. But she almost never was.

In fact, she certainly never would have been had the aspiring abortionist in whose crosshairs she found herself been more skilled. But, in this case, the man had no medical degree — just consent from the baby’s mother and a pair of fists and feet.

It’s a story that comes to us out of Utah. When a 17-year-old small-town girl (whose name has been withheld owing to her age) from eastern Utah found herself pregnant and facing threats of abandonment from her boyfriend, she enlisted the aid of an acquaintance to induce miscarriage. Sheena McFarland of the Salt Lake Tribune reports on the story, writing:

According to charging documents, 21-year-old Aaron Harrison brought the girl to his home near 1900 East and 2500 South in Naples around midnight on May 20 after she asked him to help her terminate the pregnancy.

... Harrison, an acquaintance of the girl, allegedly struck and bit her, leaving bruises on her belly and a bite mark on her neck. The girl paid $150 for the beating, according to charging documents.

Obviously and thankfully, the attempt was unsuccessful. And the amateur abortionist now sits in jail. The girl, however, will not endure the same fate. Though she was charged with a crime, she was acquitted by Eighth District Juvenile Court Judge Larry Steele. Under the law, a woman cannot be prosecuted for seeking an abortion, and Judge Steele ruled that the actions taken in the case met the definition of one. His reasoning was that since the law protecting women from such prosecutions doesn’t specify “medical” abortions, her recourse to Harrison’s “services” was legal.

This has inspired the Utah legislature to take action and pass Utah State House Bill 12. Proposed by Representative Carl Wimmer, the legislation would close the loophole in state law that Judge Steele exploited. And a big loophole it is. As it stands now, says Wimmer, “A woman going out to seek any way to kill her unborn child, no matter how heinous or brutal, couldn’t be held liable.” Under Bill 12, however, a woman found to have harmed her unborn child through “intentional, knowing or reckless” acts could be charged with criminal homicide.

The bill was passed in the legislature by wide margins — 24 to 4 in the Senate and 59 to 12 in the House — and awaits the pen of Governor Gary Herbert, who, writes the New York Times, “agrees generally with its goals but is still studying the particulars.”

But both the goals and the particulars have their usual pro-abortion opponents. These critics generally warn that legislation such as Bill 12 could, writes the Times, “open up a vast frontier around the question of intent and responsibility and give local prosecutors huge new powers to inquire about a woman’s intentions toward her unborn child.” As to this, the Times cites a case wherein a pregnant Iowa woman “fell down the stairs at home [and] confided to emergency workers that she was not sure she really wanted to have her child.” The woman was arrested “under a state law that makes it a criminal act to harm a fetus” but was “released after two days in jail, and the charges were dropped,” wrote the paper.

While such cases are emotion-grabbing, the argument they buttress is specious. Prosecutors have “huge powers” to inquire about the intentions of most anyone accused of a crime. Did a person kill in self-defense? Should a charge be manslaughter or murder? Thus, while the government-intrusion factor is certainly an argument against enacting excessive laws, it’s never an argument against a just one. Such intrusion is simply what some might call a “necessary evil” ­— necessary, at times, to thwart evil. (Note: This is consistent with my criticism of hate-crime laws. Obviously, determining whether a person committed an act on purpose is far different from determining whether he did it on purpose for politically incorrect reasons.)

As for the case of the Utah woman, we can always find instances of just laws yielding injustice. For example, we frequently hear about men who have languished in prison due to false rape allegations. Does this mean it’s wrong to criminalize rape? Should we complain about prosecutors’ “huge powers” to inquire into the cases of men thus accused?

Yet Bill 12 has its opponents even among pro-lifers. While these critics agree with its basic goal, they worry that the legislation would codify in Utah law the legitimacy of abortion in certain situations. As to this, Jim Sedlak of the American Life League says that the bill essentially states the following: “Well, it’s all right to kill a human being in this case, but not in this case.”

Sedlak raises what is a larger issue. All across the nation, we have seen a kind of moral dissonance manifest itself in the area of abortion. If a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy, what lies within her womb is considered an “unviable tissue mass.” Yet, if a man kills the same pregnant woman and then is charged with a double homicide, the “tissue mass” is suddenly to be considered a human being. In fact, in 38 states with fetal homicide laws, it’s conceivable that a man could be charged with murder after assaulting, and causing miscarriage in, a woman on her way to an abortion clinic. And we call ours the “age of reason.”

Of course, some of this contradiction can be explained in terms of normal political wrangling. As Otto Von Bismarck might have pointed out, politics is the art of the possible even among the principled. Pro-life state politicians cannot enact law unilaterally; they must compromise with the pro-abortion side. Moreover, even states that might otherwise outlaw abortion must contend with the federal government’s unconstitutional Roe v. Wade decision. The result of this political tug-of-war can be the kind morally dissonant policy I outlined above.

Yet there is something deeper here as well: There are those who have the compromise and contradiction within their own minds. They will adamantly defend a woman’s “right” to abortion; they also will support fetal homicide prosecutions. It never seems to occur to them that if an unborn baby really is a person, a woman can have no “right” to murder him; and if an assailant has simply caused the loss of an “unviable tissue mass,” the most he can be charged with is vandalism.

How can people descend into such contradiction? I believe the answer lies in the relativism of our age. When we believe in Moral Truth, we use it as our yardstick when making moral decisions. But what happens when we’re blind to Truth? Well, then we only have one thing left to use as that measure: emotion. Then, when feeling (misguided) compassion for pregnant women or a desire for convenience, we feel the baby is just a few pounds of flesh. But when feeling enraged at an attacker who has caused miscarriage, we want a pound of flesh.

This is why relativism leads to the death of reason. If there is no Truth, there are no answers to be found and then nothing to “reason out.” There then is only what feels right. Unfortunately, what feels right and what is right are often two very different things.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (15)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

JJ Suprise said:

... Thanks for another excellent article Mr. Duke. On the money once again.

March 02, 2010 | url

Flu-Bird said:

Its murder Some call it ABORTION some call it FREE CHOICE its LEGALIZED MURDER

March 03, 2010

WTF, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Gomper said:

... After reading KillerMyths comment, I think I have lost atleast 1000 braincells. Oy vey.

March 03, 2010

An angry man said:

... My question is what if the man wants to keep and raise the child by himself without any help from the women and pays for all medical expense. Why can he not have the baby. I mean it does take an egg from the women and sperm from the man to make the baby. It was half his at the start. It is not his fault that he can not have it grow in him.

March 03, 2010

Jenya said:

They should make it's illegal Life can't fit in.

March 04, 2010

angelo said:

... The real issue for many of us here in Utah is that while a woman could be prosecuted for murder for a miscarriage resulting from "recklessness", "recklessness" is not strictly defined in the bill leaving an open window for every miscarriage to be a potential murder case. They need to go back and define specifically what constitutes recklessness. Utah legislature has an extensive history of poorly written bills that end up being overturned as a result.

March 04, 2010

Larry said:

... If you believe you come from mud, why not throw the mud out if you don't like it's form? you have no moral compass to make a judgement. But if you believe we are created beings in God's image, We are obligated to follow His rules. And the right to life comes from God. If a woman does not want to have a child, she shouldn't expose herself to the possibility. We all have to make a choice. We should choose life. If we choose death for our progeny, we choose destruction. Who can determine the potential in the new-born? Maybe we are dooming ourselves to a fate worse than anything we can imagine. Maybe not.

March 05, 2010 | url

Brittany Wammack said:

... I think that everyone has their own reasons why they decide to have an abortion.. I truly believe that no one REALLY wants to have an abortion...I mean walking into that doctors office seeing everyone look at you konwing why your in there..seriously that Must Be extreamly HARD! And everyone on here bashing them doesnt make their life after their descion of abortion any esier..Somepeople call it murder..but sometimes abortion is the best option..i mean their home life may not be the best for a litle baby..they may not have enough money to care for a baby..somepeople also say thats no excuse..i may be pretty young and have never had to experience a descion like abortion..but reading alot of comments about how people are stupid and immature for making a descion like that...but really people bashing them for it aint any better..

March 05, 2010

Chris54 said:

The Only Question That Matters This is not a matter of faith, nor above anyone's paygrade. The only question that matters: What is the unborn? If the unborn is not a human being, then no justification for abortion is neccessary. However, if the unborn is a human being, then no justification for abortion is adequate. It's simple. If we're not talking about a human being, then you don't have to give any reason to have an abortion. It's like having your appendix removed. No big deal. Have an abortion. However, if the unborn is a human being, then there's no reason one can offer to have an abortion because it kills an innocent human being. The unborn's right to life trumps unwantedness, financial hardship, the freedom to choose, the right to privacy, or any other reason given to have an abortion.

March 05, 2010

Rico said:

Not a contradiction "If a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy, what lies within her womb is considered an “unviable tissue mass.” Yet, if a man kills the same pregnant woman and then is charged with a double homicide, the “tissue mass” is suddenly to be considered a human being." This is not true. No legal precedent (not even Roe v. Wade) denies the humanity, life status, or even personhood of a foetus. Roe focused on privacy just so it would not have to determine such a status for a foetus. Murder cases, on the other hand do specifically recognize the unborn to be persons. The woman's "right to privacy," then, is akin to a homeowner's right to shoot an intruder. The homeowner can do it, but a neighbor cannot. The fact that a woman can choose to abort, but a third party may not is not an iconsistency, whatever your position on abortion rights.

March 06, 2010 | url

Rico said:

The unborn are, and have always been, legally human "If the unborn is not a human being, then no justification for abortion is neccessary. However, if the unborn is a human being, then no justification for abortion is adequate. " No legal precedent denies the humanity of a foetus. Yes, much pro-choice rhetoric denies it, but no law does. If the foetus is a person, the issue is not over, unless you plan to deny the humanity of the mother. If you do not, then you must weigh the right of the mother to control her body against the right of the unborn to live. Life does not always outweigh. After all, the right of an intruder does not outweigh the propery rights of a homeowner. The right of a dying person in need of a kidney does nout outweigh a healthy person's right not to donate. The right to live is often abrogated by the rights of others. I'm not advocating a pro-choice position. I'm only explaining that the law has never ruled that a foetus is not human. It has never happened, and many laws affirm the humanity of the unborn. You ought to see this as a ray of hope. If you want to effect legal change and save these babies, you ought to know what the legal arguments really are.

March 06, 2010 | url

Deavis said:

What rights? "The unborn's right to life trumps unwantedness, financial hardship, the freedom to choose, the right to privacy, or any other reason given to have an abortion. " The unborn have no rights, they depend completely on the mother for their survival. Therefore, the mother chooses what rights that fetus has, including whether it lives or dies. A being cannot have a right where it is contingent on the enslavement or servitude of another to support that right. We get into this ridiculous moral relativism argument because emotional and hysterical do-gooders try to get the government involved to fit their agenda. Fetal homicide laws are the result of pushing morals into the legal system by the same do-gooders that want to use the government to outlaw abortion. Go save lives on your own and leave the government out of it unless REAL and ACTUAL rights are being violated.

March 07, 2010

Paladin said:

... Deavis, let me get this straight. If someone is a vegetable, the person has no rights because they are dependent on others for their survival. Got it. Sorry. Your standard is immoral. You don't sound like a very nice guy, to be honest.

March 07, 2010 | url

J Ross said:

Avoid creating the child to begin with If a person knowingly does the act that results in a pregnancy, then does it not seem responsible to let the unborn child be born, then find it another home, if it is not wanted by the mother? The time to be "pro-choice" is deciding that you don't want a child, therefore you don't do what it takes to make one. Abstinence is the only sure way to prevent a pregnancy, and it is possible to make that decision and stick to it.

March 17, 2010