Gene Veith reports on an article from the Boston Herald about a doctor in Florida who had his license revoked when a 23 week-old baby he was scheduled to abort was born before the doctor could perform the procedure.
Apparently when the baby was born, she was placed in a plastic biohazard bag and thrown in a garbage can where she died. Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips. The 18 year-old mother is now suing the doctor.
Veith raises some very important questions in light of this horrible tragedy:
"This is beyond monstrous. But I don’t understand. The mother went to get an abortion, but now is suing because the doctor killed her baby? And upon what grounds are the pro-abortionists upset? If the doctor wasn’t late and killed the baby minutes before she came out, that would have been fine in a way that doing it outside the womb is not?"
To be fair here, the article in the Herald does not state that the mother is suing because her baby was murdered, as Veith writes. Maybe she is suing for the emotional trauma that she would not have endured (seeing her newborn child thrown into a garbage can) had this doctor done his job more effectively.
But I think the vital question that still remains is: why does a story like this disgust even those who support a woman's right to abort her child, yet those same people have no qualms whatsoever had the doctor first killed the baby, and then removed her from the mother's womb?
Please understand: I am not writing this to be unnecessarily divisive or hostile. I am not interested in maintaining a blog in which everyone who reads it thinks exactly like me. If there are any readers of this blog who support a woman's right to choose the termination of her unborn child, I'd sincerely like to hear how you wrestle through something like this.