Last month I wrote an article about the ethical dilemma that the pro-baby killing folks are wrestling with regarding a practice known as “reduction.” These are procedures performed in pregnancies that involve multiple babies (twins, triplets, etc.). Through selective abortion, one or more babies are killed, until the desired number remains, usually just one. “Reduction.” What a nice impersonal, unemotional sort of word. But the nice word can only go so far in disguising what is going on in these procedures and they are causing all sorts of hand-wringing and heart burn among even the most ardent supporters of killing unborn babies.
Now, the legalized “killing of babies,” has taken on a new and even more comprehensive and precise meaning. A Canadian appeals court has ruled that a mother who strangled her infant (that is, already born) son and threw his dead body over her fence into a neighbor’s yard, cannot be charged with any crime, or at least not one related to the killing of the child. Re-read that if you like, but you probably read it correctly the first time. A mother killed her already-born-son, and is guilty of no crime. And get this…the judge’s logic in de-criminalizing what would otherwise be regarded as infanticide, relied on Canada’s abortion statutes that allow for killing of babies through the third trimester of pregnancy. It appears that the good news for those who were not able to come to the decision to kill their child en utero, can now do so after he or she has been delivered. I guess that the only remaining question, not yet adjudicated by the courts in Canada is exactly how long a mother has to exercise this frightening new privilege.
Al Mohler has a sober and thoughtful article on this subject that is well worth the time to read.