By Mike Scinto
Abortion is wrong under any and all circumstances. There, I’ve said it. I believe it and nothing could ever change my mind. I also know that it is such a divisive argument that I’m unlikely to change your mind about it anymore than you’ll persuade me to change mine. I’m very aware that the opening sentence will have people firing off emails to me asking me just who I think I am to force my beliefs onto them. That’s why you’ll rarely hear me address the issue in print or on the air. My efforts are through prayer. Having said all that, this column isn’t about abortion but rather about consistency and fairness in our laws.
I remember a case a number of years ago in Ohio, one of the first in the country, that dealt with a drunk driver and the death he caused a pregnant lady in the car he hit as well as the death of her unborn baby. As I recall it was near Cincinnati and, short of winning an appeal, he is doing time for both killings. Fast forward to yesterday; Drew’s Law (Drew was the unborn son of a couple who was killed by a drunk driver) took effect in Indiana. The Hoosier State became the 37th state to increase penalties to varying degrees when an unborn child is killed as the result of a crash with a drunk driver.
Now part of me wants to say “Hooray, it’s about time”! The rational, analytical side of me says there’s something wrong here. Without arguing the morality of abortion, I’ll simply concede that it is, after all, the law of the land.
If Drew’s mother, or the mother of the unborn baby near Cincinnati or any of a number across this country since then, had chosen to go into an abortion clinic and terminate their pregnancy, the resulting aborted fetus would simply have been thrown out. So an action that is considered an aggravated felony in 37 states would make the payments on a physician’s Mercedes in those same states when done in a different setting.
My argument is really quite simple no matter on which side you find yourself; either it’s an unborn child deserving the full protection of the law in every case, or it’s just some tissue that happened to be destroyed by deliberate, or accidental, means. You can’t have it both ways.
It’s amazing that people’s emotions are controlled, not by the true victims of these deaths, but rather by the intent of the individuals bringing about the deaths. In one case an outcome of bringing about this end of life is rewarded by monetary gain, in the other by revocation of all freedoms of the “robber”. Yes, these laws are as irrational as the emotional battles over abortion. Perhaps if we all; lawmakers, pastors and parents sat down and talked, prayed and took a step back from the rhetoric we could come to a conclusion that respected all life, and punished all those who stole it. And just maybe my opening paragraph of this column about the “great divide” wouldn’t be relevant after all.
