As I began reading "Losing bin Laden" by Richard Miniter last night, I was immediately struck by a single sentence on the first page of the introduction: "Seven Americans were killed (counting the unborn child of one of the victims) and more than one thousand were injured in the first-ever foreign terrorist attack on U.S. soil."
This simple line resonates deeply within me because it echos a significant sentiment often seen elsewhere in the news: an unborn baby killed by a random act of violence is quantified as a unique individual separate from its mother. Another highly sensationalized example of this can be found in the case of Scott Peterson, who in 2004 was convicted of two separate charges in the murders of his wife, Laci, and Conner, their unborn son.
This simple line resonates deeply within me because it echos a significant sentiment often seen elsewhere in the news: an unborn baby killed by a random act of violence is quantified as a unique individual separate from its mother. Another highly sensationalized example of this can be found in the case of Scott Peterson, who in 2004 was convicted of two separate charges in the murders of his wife, Laci, and Conner, their unborn son.
Justice may have been served for the loss of that one precious life, but what about the thousands of unborn babies slaughtered each year at the hands of abortionists? How can it be possible that an unborn baby, murdered by its father (or anyone else), is legally considered a distinct person, while those murdered every day at the request of their mothers are considered simply "tissue"?
How do they draw that line? And why?
3 comments:
Oh, Mellissa, how you tugged at my heart strings. I, too, have those same thoughts on a regular basis. How is it that one unborn child is valuable and the other disposable? What infanticidal toilet has our society flushed itself down?
So true! So beautifully said. God bless you!
Celeste
You said it sister!
Post a Comment