Cornell Law Professor Sherry Colb writing for FindLaw Magazine writes a ghastly piece on abortion.
She’s writing about the case where a woman attempted to procure a late term abortion but the abortionist wasn’t on time and the baby was born alive gasping for breath, only to be thrown into a plastic bag and killed.
Now, Colb doesn’t exactly excuse the abortionist’s actions but examines them and seeks to codify them. But the language used is, I’m sure, unintentionally ghastly and cold. Reading her column sent chills up my spine.
Here’s Colb’s writing on the issue:
One might argue, as some pro-life advocates have, that there is no meaningful difference between what Gonzalez did and what an abortion provider does, because in both cases, a fetus is killed. This argument, however, ignores one of the main premises of the right to abortion – the bodily-integrity interest of the pregnant woman. Particularly at the later stages of pregnancy, the right to abortion does not protect an interest in killing a fetus as such. What it protects instead is the woman’s interest in not being physically, internally occupied by another creature against her will, the same interest that explains the right to use deadly force, if necessary, to stop a rapist. Though the fetus is innocent of any intentional wrongdoing and the rapist is not, the woman’s interest in repelling an unwanted physical intrusion is quite similar.
Yeah. That’s right. In her little metaphor the baby is a rapist.
But of course that doesn’t make sense because the woman likely became pregnant through an act of her own will whereas a rape takes place against a woman’s will.
Now, to be fair, Colb argues that the treatment of the “creature” as she calls the baby should be investigated as homicide (which it isn’t for some crazy reason.)
In fact, Colb encourages that even non-viable fetuses who are born accidentally should be treated well. Get this one:
When a nonviable fetus completely emerges from the womb alive, writhing, and gasping for breath, the right thing to do is – at the very least – to comfort the creature until it expires or to contact someone else who will.
That’s right. Contact someone who will. From the abortion clinic you should call a friend and say “Hey buddy, I just tried killing my baby but the creature was born anyway. I’m pretty sure it’ll expire soon so could you come on down here and hug the thing until it dies. Cool?”
But why is she even so concerned with being merciful to the baby that she’s allowing to be killed? It makes no sense to me. Because the baby emerged from a woman’s womb it’s not OK to kill it then but moments before it’s fair game.
In the end, Colb blames guess who for late term abortions. Come on make a guess. That’s right pro-lifers. I’m not kidding. Because pro-lifers are asking for things like parental consent they make it more difficult to procure early abortions so pro-lifers make late term abortions more likely.
Well, just file this one under the ever expanding file of Ivy League Lunacy. And these are the elites of our culture. No wonder we’re in such trouble.
April 2, 2009 at 10:11 pm
ROFL. She’s using the logic of a sophomore (in high school).
I heard something similar this week. A group of boys were talking about killing burglars under common law. They began to argue (with the logic of sophomore boys) that they might legally shoot a party guest who hangs around too long. Although he was invited, like a homeintruder, he is occupying the livingroom against homeowner’s will.
I thought they were being sophomoric. Now I see that they’re doctorate material.
April 2, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Ms Colb says “For both pro-choice and pro-life advocates, the facts of this case are unsettling and even shocking”.
I know this goes against the grain of the strategy a lot of good pro-life work (such as the ban on partial birth abortion), but something in me wants to protest: “No Ms Colb, you are not entitled to find the facts of this case unsettling and shocking. They are YOUR facts, and YOU are responsible for them. Take a long hard look at them and don’t give yourself the luxury of looking away. Then maybe you will really SEE.”
Ultimately, Ms Colbs article demonstrates that the pro-abortion lobby is driven by asthetics. As long as we can’t see the reality it isnt there.
April 3, 2009 at 2:24 am
This is truly beyond ghastly. I find it almost unbearable to believe that anyone could see an unborn (or newborn) baby this way.
Horrifying.
April 3, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Even animals treat their offspring with more care and love than some sick people do. Which means that some morally dead people are lower than animals when they kill their own child.
April 3, 2009 at 3:07 pm
In that case, Colb was a creature in her mother’s womb. If she doesn’t want creatures in her womb, then maybe she and other women should learn to respect their bodies and keep their legs closed.
April 3, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Why not drop that creature Colb an e-mail:
sfcolb@gmail.com
April 3, 2009 at 5:07 pm
That woman is insane and very dangerous. She is another type of Hitler. Very disturbing
April 3, 2009 at 5:46 pm
This is an old bogus argument used when women were subject to “property rights” — a bogus argument pushed by the likes of Marquette’s Daniel McGuire, a pro abortion ultra liberal. It was used in middle ages to justify abortion and got past some — the notion of the baby as aggressor ignored the baby’s inherent human worth.
April 3, 2009 at 8:00 pm
How does it escape Colb that the Rapist is given maybe a few years in Jail, while the baby is executed in an inhumane way?
Aren’t these the same people that cry over murderers being executed, but an innocent baby deserves execution?
April 3, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Oh My God!
Nothing I could say would dent the insanity of this person.
Most dogs …. in fact most all animals are better than this person. Remember the cat who carried her kittens out of a burning building, one by one, getting herself singed in the process? That cat was wayy better than this thing who posted this blog.
April 3, 2009 at 8:10 pm
This is horrifying. It is another example of people not taking responsibility for their own actions. A woman does not want this foreign “creature” inside of her??? It is her own flesh and blood that she helped to create!!! The “creature” is her child; a living BABY that IS a part of her. I don’t understand how anyone can say things like this.
April 4, 2009 at 2:19 am
“Late-term abortions are morally complicated, because the later-term fetus may experience pain and may therefore plausibly be described – without any need for a religious gloss – as truly being a victim of the procedure. This does not, as some claim, necessarily mean that a woman should not have the right to terminate a pregnancy.“
My God, this woman is blind.
April 4, 2009 at 7:01 pm
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
April 4, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Guys, please keep the language just a little bit this side of good taste. Thank you.
April 5, 2009 at 1:31 am
So she admits we are created.
April 5, 2009 at 6:06 am
The “elite” are no different than others. They take a position whether through selfisahness, hostility to religion or whatever.
They then rationalize it so that evil can be disguised as good. There is no room for discussio. Look a a picture of the infant in the womb. The fetus is a real peson and to kill it is MURDER!
April 5, 2009 at 6:57 am
Upon reading this, my first response was to get angry, but then I realized that God doesn’t want us to get angry, but to pray for this person and all those like her, and send extra angels to help bring her to him. Because she is obviously deeply wounded and is absolutely being lied to and manipulated by Satan through her own brokenness.
April 5, 2009 at 5:06 pm
This amazes me – this article refers to the “woman’s interest in not being physically, internally occupied by another creature against her will”. It appears to me that the woman who makes a conscious choice to have sex, knowing full well what the consequences could be, is making a choice of pre-meditated murder with the choice to end the pregnancy. It was her will to have sex, so if she had an interest in not being physically and internally occupied by a “creature” against her will, the choice seems simple. Use precautions, or don’t have sex. At the point of conception, her choice should be done. What about the innocent baby’s choice to live? I guess that doesn’t count. Is it any wonder God is allowing the world to spiral downward at a very fast rate? None of us should be surprised.
April 5, 2009 at 10:00 pm
If people really knew what they are being “internally occupied” by when their heart is so hardened against the helpless unborn, I think they would go as fast as their legs could carry them to the nearest confessional box and have “it” removed. – Blessings – Rene
April 6, 2009 at 12:07 am
Will someone please post this babykillers contact information. I would like to write her a letter. Any coward who supports abortion has the blood of babies on their hands.
SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life. http://www.armyofgod.com