I just read this blog post by Amy Hall of Stand To Reason. Though killing a newborn baby is no different than killing an unborn baby or a partially born baby, this case in Canada shows that the abortion law is a slippery slope, and in this case, it’s in the wrong direction.
This case should show that there is no difference at all between a newborn baby and an unborn baby, but it’s sad that to some, rather than concluding that killing the unborn is wrong, it means that killing the newborn is OK.
Here’s Amy Hall’s post.
The second-degree murder conviction of a Canadian woman who strangled her newborn was overturned (an appeals court ruled there was a reasonable doubt, though she had twice received this conviction from juries) and replaced with the conviction of infanticide, which has a much lower maximum sentence of five years.
But the sentence was suspended, and the judge cited Canada’s lack of anti-abortion laws as part of her decision: “[W]hile many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support…. Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother.”
Wait a minute…abortion? So now this falls under the same reasoning as abortion?
“Katrina Effert was 19 on April 13, 2005, when she secretly gave birth in her parents’ home, strangled the baby boy with her underwear and threw the body over a fence into a neighbour’s yard.”
So now sympathy for the mother is enough to justify killing a born human being, and so her actions fall under the same guidelines as those in Canada that cover women who want to kill their unborn children.
It makes perfect, consistent sense, of course—the child is the same human being before birth that he is after, so if the reasons are sufficient in the first case, they ought to be sufficient in the second. I guess I just hoped the adoption of a consistent view would work backward to protect the unborn rather than forward to endanger the “justborn” (a term I just heard for the first time in connection with this case).
But because of consistent thinking, the judge said that Canadians have found the no-minimum-sentence infanticide law to be a “fair compromise of all the interests involved” when it comes to killing justborns, and then she suspended even that.
But Effert is not completely off the hook yet:
“Next week, the court will hear arguments on a remaining issue from Effert’s long legal battle: the 16 days of jail time she still must serve for throwing her baby’s body over the fence.
“Her lawyer, Peter Royal, asked the court to do away with the penalty or allow her to serve the time on weekends. It was ‘unjust’ and ‘almost mean to incarcerate her’ at this point, he argued.”
Actually, I agree with her lawyer. If murdering a child isn’t worth jail time, it certainly is just meanness to put Effert in jail for throwing a dead body over a fence.