Thinking Out Loud with Alan Shlemon - The Puzzling Inconsistency of Abortion and Homicide Laws

Episode Date: June 13, 2023

Alan describes the inconsistency in current laws surrounding abortion and homicide and offers a simple solution.

In the United States, there are many laws that allow women to end the lives of their unborn children. But there are also some laws in place that protect unborn children. And of course, this leads to a puzzling inconsistency in the law. That's what I want to talk about in the latest episode of my podcast, Thinking Out Loud with Alan Schliemann. Lehman. Roe versus Wade is dead. And this is the very first year in nearly half a century that the ghastly U.S. Supreme Court decision is no longer in effect. Sadly, though, abortion is still very much alive. And in fact, there are many laws that protect the right of women to end the lives of their unborn children. Now, despite this reality, there are still some state laws in place that protect unborn children, which leads to a puzzling inconsistency in the law.

You see, it is currently considered murder to kill an unborn child in 38 states in America. And these protections are referred to as fetal homicide laws. And so even in the left-leaning state in which I live, California, this is what the penal code states, quote, murder is the unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus with malice afterthought, end quote. So the law appropriately protects the unborn because the unborn is a human being. And that, of course, makes sense, right? It's wrong to kill an unborn human being for the same reason it's wrong to kill a two-month-old human being or to kill a two-year-old human being. Now, of course, these fetal homicide laws contain an exception, which when you reflect

on the logic of that exception, it's truly mystifying. And here's how the exception, at least in California, here's how it's worded. It basically says that it's unlawful to kill a fetus except when, quote, the act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus, end quote. So this is truly bizarre, right? end quote. So this is truly bizarre, right? Because if a doctor goes and kills a pregnant woman's unborn child, it's considered murder. If, however, the woman asks the same doctor to kill her child, then it's not murder. Now, how does that make any sense? If the unborn is a valuable human being, then how can the mother's mere decision alter the child's value? Notice, once the unborn is no longer inside her, a mother's decision can't change the status of her child. Even if the mother solicits the doctor's services

and consents to her daughter's death, the doctor will still be charged with murder if he proceeds to take the child's life as he would have done in utero. Now, it makes sense that the mother's mere consent can't change the value of her two-year-old daughter. Move the child back inside the mother's womb, and now, suddenly, the child is fair game. inside the mother's womb, and now, suddenly, the child is fair game. She can be killed with impunity so long as the mother solicits, aids, abets, or consents to her daughter's death. This is wildly inconsistent. So, consider a hypothetical case where a woman is pregnant with identical twins. Now, imagine for a moment that one of the twins is delivered prematurely at around the 25th week of pregnancy. Of course, typical pregnancies last about 40 weeks. So, the born twin, though not fully developed, is automatically protected under the law.

is automatically protected under the law. Her twin sister, who's still inside the womb, however, can be killed at any time during the remainder of her 15-week gestation. Why? Because the law says the mother can decide to kill her in utero twin daughter while her identical twin daughter outside the womb is safely protected from the mother's whim. The solution to this baffling inconsistency is actually rather simple. Our society should remove the exception. A mother should not be able to, at will, transform her child's status

from valuable and protected to non-valuable and not protected. After all, the laws of 38 states already protect unborn children. All that's necessary now is to remove the exception and abortion laws will be consistent with homicide laws. Now, of course, abortion choice advocates also recognize the inconsistency in the law. But for them, instead of resolving it by removing the mother's right to solicit, aid, abet, or consent to her child's death, they want to remove fetal homicide laws. And that's because they recognize that these laws humanize unborn

children, and that's not conducive to protecting abortion rights long-term. So of course, what this means for the pro-life community is that there remains a tremendous amount of work to be done to overturn the greatest injustice of our time. Roe v. Wade is dead, but the abortion industry is very much alive. And that's why we at Stand to Reason, and including myself, continue to train believers and other pro-life advocates to protect the most vulnerable members of the human community. Well, that's all I have for you today. If you enjoyed these short podcast episodes where I talk about apologetics or theology or cultural issues, be sure to rate or review my podcast on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever

you listen to podcasts. And thanks for listening. I look forward to thinking out loud with you next time.