Apparently, a jury in Arkansas felt that this man should be punished for what he did, and last week convicted him under a fetal protection law that allows for murder charges if a fetus in the 12th week of gestation or later dies as a result of a violent crime. He was sentenced to life without parole.

When I heard about this, I felt that this man had gotten what he deserved. If you hire someone to kill a baby, you should be punished—right?

Well, that depends. As strange as it may sound, whether or not you get punished depends on whether you are the mother of the child. You see, in America, the mother can hire someone to kill her baby, and it’s ok. In fact, it’s perfectly acceptable. The U.S. Supreme Court has even ruled that hiring someone to kill her baby is a woman’s constitutional right. Nearly one in three pregnant women does just that. However, if someone else does it, they get life in prison without parole. Doesn’t seem fair, does it?

Imagine for a moment, that it was the mother of the baby mentioned above who had done the hiring. Because the baby was nine months along, the mother would have had to pay a lot more than the man did. She could be expected to pay anywhere from $1500 to $3000 for her hired help.

In exchange for this money, her hired helper would not beat her up; he would employ more “humane” methods. He would begin by inducing dilation of her cervix. He would then remove the intact fetus from the uterus through the cervix. The helper would then pull the fetal body (feet first) through the cervix, all except for the head. He would then stab the infant in the back of the neck with scissors, and insert a tube to suck out the “cranial matter.” After collapsing the skull in this manner, the hired helper would fully extract the now dead fetus through the cervix. Mission accomplished, $1500 a killer. It appears that the difference between a lifetime prison sentence and a constitutional right is about 1400 bucks.

This got me thinking—if there was some serial killer roaming our country, killing unborn children in this gruesome manner, wouldn’t it be front page news? Wouldn’t this person be as reviled as Ted Bundy, Richard Ramirez and Jeffrey Dahmer? Wouldn’t we be united in our outrage at the monster who could perform such evil acts on defenseless children? I believe that we would. Just look at what happened to the man who paid to have his girlfriend’s baby killed—he’s going to prison for life. So, why don’t we react the same way when the mother takes the exact same actions?

Well, we say to ourselves, when the mother consents to the killer’s actions, it’s a different story. After all, she has a constitutional right. And let’s not forget about a woman’s “right to choose.” We rationalize her acts by declaring a baby to be merely “tissue” or a “product of conception.” Thus, we assure ourselves, this apparent conflict of our principles is resolved.

Sadly, these rationalizations have swayed many to believe that a child only has the right to live if its mother agrees to it. Thus, America is today awash in these mother-financed serial killers. These people profit from killing the unborn, and they are in high demand. And not only do we not prosecute them, we pass laws that ensure that they can do their work. There are people in our country who make a living by stabbing babies—live, human babies—in the head with scissors and sucking out their brains. Read that last sentence again. If you don’t see something wrong with that fact, I pray for your soul.

The following examples should make clear that partial-birth abortions make hypocrites of all moral citizens. Imagine that a woman has chosen to have a partial-birth abortion. The baby is dangling outside the mother, all except the head, and the “doctor” is just about to puncture the infant’s skull when, suddenly, a man bursts into the room and stabs the baby in the head, killing it. What should this man be charged with? Murder? The unauthorized practice of medicine?

Surely, that man would be charged with murder under a fetal protection statute such as the one above, perhaps even in the absence of one. Yet, the only charges the paid abortionist, who was on the verge of taking the exact same actions as the killer, would face are the charge cards of the mothers who pay him to kill their babies.

Or, imagine that the above scenario occurred when the mother was giving birth, not undergoing an abortion. Is there anyone who doesn’t believe that the killer would be prosecuted for murder for his actions in killing the child? This illustrates that what the pro-abortion forces in this country have done through their arguments is to make the unalienable right to life possessed by the child dependent upon whether the infant is “wanted.” If the mother wants the baby, it’s a child and no one may kill it. If the mother doesn’t want the child, it’s a “product of conception,” and may be destroyed at will. However, if our unalienable rights depend upon the whims of others, they are not really “unalienable” and we are all in danger. If that child’s unalienable rights can be taken away, what is to stop someone from taking away yours?

What is the difference between a baby an hour before birth, and an hour after? Why can’t a mother decide that her three-day old son, or ten-year old daughter is no longer wanted, and pay someone to kill them? This might be called the post-birth abortion, and it may be the next new constitutional right dreamed up by the Supreme Court. Already, babies who somehow survive the abortionists attempts to kill it before it is separated from its mother are left to die in hospitals across this country.