by Selwyn Duke
"Hell hath no fury like that of a woman scorned," said William Shakespeare. This might explain why Corinne Wilcott delivered two kicks to her husband's pregnant mistress' stomach, killing her 15 week old baby. She is now charged with murder of an unborn child, aggravated assault of an unborn child and related charges in the death of Sheena Carson's baby -- such charges are made possible by the fact that in these women's home state of Pennsylvania there is a statute governing crimes against unborn children.
Mrs. Wilcott has a defense lawyer and his name is Tim Lucas, and Mr. Lucas is, of course, waging a campaign to get his client out from under the charges. He is not, however, in O.J. Simpson-like style, maintaining his client's innocence in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. No, in fact he's the first to say that his client did in fact strike those two body blows with the intent of destroying what lay within her victim's womb.
What Counselor Lucas is saying is that Pennsylvania law contradicts itself on this matter and for that reason makes no sense. His argument is that while an assailant can be charged with murder if he kills a given fetus of any age, that same fetus can be legally killed through abortion up until it's six months old. Now, I've never been a fan of defense lawyers, as they will usually conjure up convoluted machinations galore to trump justice and free the guilty, but this case is different because Mr. Lucas' argument is more than just an example of slick lawyering. His logic is inescapable and he is in point of fact bringing us face to face with a lie we've been living for far too long.
The fact is that the situation in Pennsylvania is not in any way unique, rather, it is part and parcel of a contradiction in law and thinking that has become common from sea to shining sea. For, while abortions are performed at the rate of about one million a year and the right to kill a fetus within that context is defended with vigor, it is also true that society seeks to prosecute for murder those who kill fetuses within any other context with the same vigor. This is why Corinne Wilcott is not alone -- people who murder pregnant women are commonly charged with double-murder.
The problem with this should be obvious: an unborn baby is either a human being or he isn't -- that status isn't determined by who wants him alive or who happens to kill him. In fact, this is so obvious that one might wonder how a people could be guilty of such collective cognitive dissonance [the holding of two contradictory ideas in one's mind at the same time]. The answer to that should be fairly obvious as well: many of us just don't care enough about this issue to analyze it thoroughly and ferret out the truth, and even more damnably, some of us are willing to tolerate the killing of a group of our fellow human beings because it makes life more convenient.
Now, it might be very easy to just slough this off as a matter in which rising above indifference would place too much strain on the gray matter; it might be very scary to search for an answer that, if found, would demand that you embrace an unpopular position that could alienate friends and enjoin you to make sacrifices and cast convenience to the winds. But it has been said that the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. Bad people are apathetic -- good people care. Selfish people act out of convenience -- selfless people act out of altruism. Weak people are afraid to stand up for what's right -- strong people fight for justice.
And justice is a large part of what this is all about. After all, if a fetus is just an "unviable tissue mass" as the pro-abortion crowd is fond of saying, then they are as right as can be -- there's nothing immoral about abortion. But, if that be true, then what is immoral is to charge someone who causes the termination of a fetus with murder, because again, it's just an "unviable tissue mass."
On the other hand, if what we call a "fetus" is in fact an unborn human being, then we certainly can charge miscreants who cause the death of one of these babies with murder. But it should be starkly plain what the implication of this is: when we kill these unborn babies and call it abortion, we are guilty of murder too -- and the fact that we choose to do the dirty deed within a different context sanitizes it not a whit.
For how long we will continue to live this lie I don't know, but we can continue to wallow in indifference-induced contradiction if we so choose. But anyone who is intellectually honest strives to be consistent, and that leaves us with only two choices: we can step up to the plate and stand against the small-scale carnage caused by outlaws like Corinne Wilcott, and the wide-scale carnage perpetrated by those who do what she does within the bounds of immoral abortion law. Or, we can say it's not carnage -- it's no different than irreparably damaging someone's spleen. But I would ask those who wish to do the latter to ask themselves one question: would I be willing to explain to a formerly expectant mother that the person who destroyed her "fetus" won't be charged with murder because her baby was nothing more than an unviable tissue mass? If we'd balk at that assignment we'd better rethink things...because that's where the rubber hits the road. I wonder how many of us would be willing to do it...
