Dog Dismembers Two Month Old Child; Abortionist Dismembers Two Month Old Fetus – What’s The Difference?
Here’s a sad and disheartening story out of Summerville, S.C. – a two month old child has been killed, dismembered, by a family dog. It’s a tragedy that tugs at the hearts of any parent. But – why is it when, instead of a family dog, or wild animal, doing the killing, it is an abortionist doing the killing, and the dismembering of a fetus - that kind of a story does not horrify the same people who become horrified and saddened over the death of a two month old child? In other words, what is the difference between a “family dog” killing and dismembering a two month old child, and an abortionist killing and dismembering a two months old fetus, or a fetus at any stage of development?
When a pet, however tame, in a moment of “wildness” injures or kills a child – isn’t it routine to “put down” (kill) that pet? We would never consider doing that to an abortionist, would we? The animal, on the one hand, which commits the injury, or killing, of a child does not do so with premeditated intent or knowledge that in doing so it will ultimately harm the child. The abortionist, on the other hand, when it kills and dismembers the fetus from the womb, absolutely does do so with premeditated intent and with the knowledge that in doing so they will ultimately be causing the death of the unborn child.
Why is it moral to kill the animal for doing something it does not know, does not have the capacity to know, is going to result in the injury or death of the child, or person, it attacks? And – why is it moral to allow an abortionist to do something to a fetus, an unborn child, knowing, and having the capacity and intelligence to know, full well that what they are doing is killing the fetus?
The same people who would argue the position of “Well, the child is two months old and already out of the womb”, and who use that as reason enough to justify the difference are the same people who support partial birth abortion. In other words, does a child have to be fully out of the womb before it is afforded legal protection and status as a human being? And is that why supporters of abortion so vigorously support any method of killing the unborn child, even partially delivering it; then killing it; then removing the rest of the corpse from the womb?
There is only one difference between a dog, any animal, injuring and/or killing a child/person and an abortionist killing an unborn child in/partially out of the womb. The abortionist is doing it knowingly, intentionally and with the full knowledge of what they are doing will result in the killing of the unborn child. (The abortionist is also doing it knowing they will be paid for their services.)
Why do we tolerate the abortionist killing the unborn child? Why do we “put down” the animal for doing, ultimately, the same thing as the abortionist? The abortionist, or the animal – which is the more ravenous and wild?
- Authorities: Dog kills, dismembers SC 2-month-old (newsok.com)
- The Unborn Child; (hyattractions.wordpress.com)
- In an Act of Pure Selfishness, Mother Aborts Her “Retarded” Child (socyberty.com)