Opinion

America’s inconsistent protection of life

protect life

When an abortion is performed, it’s easy to turn a blind eye on what physically happens to the child because we don’t see it happening. It’s a blind procedure, after all, so we don’t see babies being ripped apart and sucked into a vacuum. Unless you worked in the POC (product of conception) lab like Abby Johnson, you don’t see that.

It’s easy to ignore something you can’t see because you can sugar coat it with the phrases “women’s rights” or “reproductive freedom”.

But the same isn’t so when it comes to other life issues.

Recently the Supreme Court ” indefinitely stayed the execution of Missouri death row prisoner Russell Bucklew . . . showing the likelihood of unnecessary pain and suffering beyond what is constitutionally permissible”.

Bucklew, who was convicted of raping one woman and killing multiple people, was scheduled to die this week by lethal injection shortly after his 46th birthday. But his attorneys appealed against the injection due to a rare medical condition Bucklew has called cavernous hemangioma. The condition causes facial hemorrhaging which means he could potentially suffer from excruciating pain the supreme court has deemed unconstitutional.

Isn’t it interesting how the Supreme Court deems this death unconstitutional, but ignores the science behind abortion?

Causing a man (who happens to be guilty of committing horrendous crimes) to bleed abnormally and suffer excruciating pain goes against the constitution, so they say. And it makes sense. Even is you’ve chosen to do something terrible, you don’t deserve cruel and unusual punishment. But what about abortion? The child has not done anything except grow. They could not have committed any crimes. They are innocent.

And yet the Supreme Court upholds the so-called right of American doctors to rip unborn children apart limb-by-limb.

Now you tell me how America’s inconsistent protection of (some) lives makes sense.

READ NEXT
Comments3
To Top