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.