The horrific murder of Bobbie Jo Stinnett and the kidnapping of her eight-month-old fetus/baby has silenced the pro-choice lobby, because the topic of unborn children's rights cannot be discussed without running the risk of self-stamping oneself a hypocrite.
In Rich Lowry's recent column, he points out the oddity of how news organizations handled the words "baby" and "infant" interchangeably:
"All at once on AOL News during the weekend, there were headlines tracking events in the case: "Woman Slain, Fetus Stolen"; "Woman Arrested, Baby Returned in Bizarre Murder"; "Infant in Good Health." Note how a "fetus" -- something for which American law and culture has very little respect -- was somehow instantly transformed into a "baby" and "infant" -- for which we have the highest respect. By what strange alchemy does that happen?
"An AP story effected this magic transition all in one sentence: "Authorities said Montgomery, 36, confessed to strangling Bobbie Jo Stinnett of Skidmore, Mo., on Thursday, cutting out the fetus and taking the baby back to Kansas." At one point, when Montgomery was still at large, an Amber Alert went out about the Stinnett girl, putting news organizations in the strange position of reporting such an alert for what many of them were still calling a "fetus."
But just how different is a fetus from a baby? According to recent law, the gap is narrowing because people are beginning to recognize the necessity for individual human rights to be extended to a class that some don't consider individual and human.
In the Scott Peterson case, a husband was convicted of two counts of murder; one for the death of his wife Laci, and one for the death of his unborn son Connor. Earlier this year, Congress passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, making it a crime to harm an unborn baby while assaulting the mother, partly in response to the Peterson case. If you can believe it, pro-choice liberal lobbies denounced the law as "one more step in the process to controlling the bodies of women."
Planned Parenthood had this to say: "The so-called Unborn Victims of Violence Act is not intended to protect pregnant women or punish individuals who harm them. It is part of a deceptive anti-choice strategy to make women's bodies vessels by creating legal personhood for the fetus."
Meanwhile sensible people support legal "personhood" rights for the unborn because it allows for the effective prosecution of such scumbags as Scott Peterson and Lisa Montgomery; two despicable individuals who deserve to be punished for what they did to two children, let alone for the ghastly murders of two adults. Peterson killed his son and Montgomery kidnapped Bobbie Jo's baby.
Some liberals - as hard as it may be - will say that the acts involving the children merit prosecution, but they have a hard time justifying that position when they believe the destruction of such children is acceptable when it's an abortion. Basically their weak argument is summed up as: it's okay to have an abortion as long as it's the mother who chooses to have one, but it's not okay for the father to take a similar action that gets the same end result, or for someone to kidnap it.
This begs the question: How can something that's described as a "bundle of cells" be kidnapped? You can't kidnap a car, computer or organ (advanced bundle of cells that have formed tissues that have formed organs), but you can kidnap a bundle of cells if it will eventually become a life. You can't, however, call it murder when that "bundle of cells" is killed via the services of abortion.
Liberals have now defined something that can be harmed, kidnapped, but not murdered. The people will not stand for it. When you attack a pregnant woman, you attack two people and the laws reflect the concept. You'd think feminists would support laws that increase penalties for harming pregnant mothers. But they don't, because we have the audacity to stick up for the defenseless unborn that they consider to be nothing more than a "bundle of cells" at the disposal of a woman's choice.