Thursday, October 19, 2006

Charges against the woman who shot herself to kill her unborn child have been dismissed

ABC News has a long story on Tammy Skinner, her situation, and the legalities surrounding this case.

As always, abortion advocates have a way of using any situation to call for increased "access" to abortion. A woman shoots herself on the day she's supposed to give birth and you want to know what Lynn Paltrow (an abortion advocate) thinks the solution is? That's right - tax-funded abortions.
"When Medicaid does not fund abortion. … It is totally inappropriate to turn to the criminal justice system to respond to these problems"

Instead of asking "What crime did she commit?," Paltrow thinks we should be asking, "Why didn't she have access to abortion services?"

How about questions like:
Did Skinner ever consider adoption?
Was she aware of Safe Haven laws?
How did she find out she was pregnant - what services were offered to her at that time?
How fallen is our society that a mother shoots herself with the desire to kill her child on the day the child is due to be born?
How messed up are some people in our society that they think the solution to this problem would be spending tax dollars on abortion? (It's like Paltrow is thinking - "If only we could have killed that child earlier.")
How can anyone think shooting herself is the answer to a crisis pregnancy?
Is killing the child the solution to any crisis pregnancy?
Did Skinner see her child as human being? And if so, why did she shoot this child and not one of her two born children?
What would Skinner have been charged with if she shot her child right after the child was born?
Would Skinner have been charged if she shot a partially-born child?
How can the advocates of legal abortion who put a woman's right to do whatever she wants to her body be against a woman shooting herself on her due date? It's her body, right? Shouldn't she be able to end her pregnancy in any manner?

No comments:

Post a Comment