Logical Inconsistencies in light of Casey Anthony Case

Folks are, understandably, perturbed at the whole Casey Anthony case.   The not-guilty verdict has elicited frustrated reactions across the popular media.   Harder to swallow than the verdict, though, is the visceral and gut-churning singular fact that a mother might actually harm a defenseless child.

That response is the right one.   It is good and just and merciful and charitable and human.   The loss of human life should never be celebrated; not when it is the assassination of an unarmed, half-asleep, elderly mujahideen and most definitely not when it is the murder of an innocent and adorable two-year-old little girl.     Though my point isn’t to bring up poor Caylee Anthony.   She is long gone from this world, and nothing will bring her back, certainly not a few keystrokes and pixels on a screen.

But the death of Caylee brings forth some pertinent and burning questions.   Questions that I personally feel aren’t being raised as often as they should be.   Questions pertaining to the lives of children living today, of children who might live tomorrow.   These children are in danger of facing the same fate as Caylee.

The simple fact in all this is that, had Casey Anthony decided to murder her lovely daughter, Caylee Anthony, 1095 days earlier, it would have been perfectly legal.

Here in Canada, abortion is legal for the entire 9 months of pregnancy.   Over three million Caylee Anthonys were dismembered and discarded in Canada from abortion’s legalization in 1969 to the present day.

We have all heard the so-called “pro-choice” arguments put forth in favour of such legalization.     The right to abortion is paramount, say self-proclaimed feminists in organizations like NOW and Planned Parenthood, if women are to enjoy legal and economic equality with men.   They say that women have the right to choose whether or not to share their bodies with their fetus, often referring to these fetuses as “diseases” or “viruses.”

Indeed, here are some women accurately summing up much of the pro-choice rhetoric by sharing their own feelings after having an abortion in an older article (circa 2006) from the British newspaper, The Guardian.    Zoe Gillard says:

Despite the trauma of the experience, I have still always known it was the right thing for me to have done and have never regretted it. The fact is that, for me, it was the only thing I could have done. I don’t know who I would be now if I hadn’t been able to make that choice.

Kat Stark shares:

There hasn’t been any point when I have regretted my decision. The pregnancy was a moment when my life could have gone in one direction or another and I feel really happy with the decision I came to.

Cath Elliot’s experience was thus:

I had already had four children – aged between two and 10 at the time – and when I realised I was pregnant again, I knew almost instantly that I didn’t want to go ahead. My husband and I had felt so happy during my earlier pregnancies, but when we discussed this one, both of us were thinking the same thing: what on earth are we going to do?… For me, the whole thing was an absolute relief and I have never regretted my decision.

Another woman wrote after her abortion:

I have no regrets, just a bit worried. I just want for everything to work out OK. I completely trust my own judgment and know that I made the right decision. I just hope that the end justifies the means. I just want to know what the future will hold for me. I guess I will soon see – This is the happiest that I have been in a very long time.

Can’t find that last quotation in article I linked?  That’s because it isn’t from the article, but rather from the diary of Casey Anthony in an entry dated for June 21, five days after Casey and Caylee’s 30 day disappearance began.     I do not think it is reaching to suggest that Casey Anthony simply engaged in a very-late-term abortion.  After all, I think a strong argument could be made that a two-year old is more of a drain, physically, financially, and sometimes emotionally than a fetus in the womb.    If a fetus is such a barrier for women, how much more is a child?   If inconvenience is the only necessary criteria necessary for eliminating children (or indeed, humanity), then no one is safe under such a moral code.

Allow me to be abundantly clear, my purpose isn’t to demonize women who choose abortion.   They’re a product of the culture, as we all are, and are constantly under the yoke of an increasingly materialistic and amoral society.   Nor is my intention to demonize the norms and values that have lead to legal abortion-on-demand; for those have always been demonic.

At any rate, logical consistency on the part of pro-choicers would demand that pro-choicers support and laud Ms. Anthony for her decision to destroy her child.   It was the right decision “for her”, she had “no regrets” afterward, and her decision made her “the happiest that [she had] been in a very long time.”    Why haven’t pro-choicers acknowledged their poster-girl?

Ethicists (and I use the term lightly, for calling Singer an Ethicist is like calling someone with no knowledge of the periodic table a chemist) like Peter Singer have already gotten to that point.   Parents have the right to kill their children at their own discretion, Singer says.   On that, Dr. Singer and Ms. Anthony have an entente.    Are you, reader, among their camp?

Have you fallen prey to the hair-splitting and double-think that are the brick and mortar of the destructive philosophy that is gripping our society and culture?    Indeed, on the issue of making a synthesis between post-abort mothers (like those shared above) and those who lose their babies to complications like miscarriages, one pro-choice blogger writes:

Legally, fetuses are not infants, are not considered persons, and thus, having an abortion is not murder. But we must remember, the personal is different from the legal. Pregnancy is different for every single woman- and one woman may experience multiple pregnancies in very different ways. A woman may consider her fetus to be ababy, or already a person, because she plans to carry to term. Another woman may consider her fetus to be a baby  even though she is planning to have an abortion. Those feelings and beliefs are normal, valid,  and should be perfectly acceptable.

The criteria necessary for someone to be deemed human?   Clap your hands if you believe.   Convenience is the cornerstone of post-Christian ethics; convenience and consent and equality (though the “equality” of today could perhaps more accurately be called “conformity” or “bland homogeneity.”)

I think the media and our society should be taken to task on this contradiction that the horrible murder of Caylee Anthony has brought to light.     Either killing children is evil and reprehensible, or it isn’t.

5 thoughts on “Logical Inconsistencies in light of Casey Anthony Case

  1. Justice for Caylee has prevailed! Thank God for Casey’s defense team and for the prosecution screwing up so much. 🙂

  2. As the Christian prochoicer who wrote about abortion and miscarriages, I would like to point out that you completely lied about what I wrote. I very clearly said that there is a legal definition for human being. However, every person has different feelings and emotions surrounding pregnancy, and we should respect people enough to respect those feelings and emotions.

    Murder is illegal and wrong. Abortion is legal and morally acceptable. Comparing the two makes no sense.

    1. I don’t think I misrepresented what you said at all. You did indeed specify that there are legal definitions that denote personhood (or withhold it.) My charge isn’t that you didn’t do so, but rather that these legal definitions that you buy into are illogical. In Canada, you’re not a “legal” person until your cord is cut, an arbitrary starting-point for life that is utterly divorced from any sort of reason. Ofttimes, the “legal” definition of personhood and the moral and reasonable one are at odds, and when they are, I find it safer to side with tradition and conscience and logic rather than the state.

      In that illogical and unreasonable (and uncharitable) spirit of abortion that I mentioned above, you’ve stated, implicitly, that if two fetuses in the same stage of development, one is human and the other isn’t based on the singular fact of whether or not the child’s mother “feels” like the baby is human.

      And frankly, I don’t care if abortion is legal. Slavery and wife-beating once were too. I, personally, don’t allow statutes meted and doled by unelected bodies to supersede my own conscience. If you wish to, that is your prerogative.

      As for my comparison “making no sense,” did you even read what I wrote? Did you read your own quotation that I shared in the post? Did you read what those women and Ms. Anthony wrote? Comparing abortion to murder appears to me to make far more sense than magic vaginal canals and mystic umbilical cords transforming formless lumps into breathing, living, human beings. It makes more sense than pregnant women wizardly bestowing humanity on their children in utero with nothing but their own feelings and intentions.

      Rather than having the chutzpah to say whether or not a fetus is a human in that blog post on that very important issue you brought to light, you take a cowardly and illogical way out and state, “Whatever, it doesn’t matter because a fetus is whatever you want it to be.” In attempting to be charitable and kind, you’ve done a disservice to both groups of women, those post-abortion and those struggling with the intense loss and pain felt at losing a child before really even knowing her or him.

      Either a fetus is a human being or it isn’t. If it is, no justification for abortion is possible. If it isn’t, no justification is necessary.

  3. HLN to cutback airtime on Nancy Grace, JVM, VP, to help with costs of upcoming CMA lawsuits. HLN is scrambling now that Casey Anthony was found not guilty on all charges except for the lie-charges and HLN is expected to lose millions of dollars in lawsuits against themselves and in the loss of advertising dollars since they were proven to be so very wrong on their reporting on the Casey/Caylee Anthony charges from back in 2008 through today. Wrong on all counts by HLN by all of their reporters for years and years, doesn’t get any worse for a network than that. Perhaps HLN should now consider reporting unbiased and more fair and balanced for a change. Time for Nancy and Jane to return to rehab and Vinnie to get some training on journalism101.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s