A couple of weeks ago, a pregnant woman named Michelle Wilkins went to a home in Boulder, Colorado, looking to buy some baby clothes. The predator there, Dynal Lane, had placed an ad on Craigslist with the intent not of selling anything, but of stealing someone's unborn child.
Lane accosted Mrs. Wilkins when she arrived at the house, cutting her uterus open with a knife, removing her baby and leaving her to bleed to death. Fortunately, the mother survived the attack, but sadly, her young daughter did not. Lane stowed the infant in an upstairs bathroom, where the little girl died alone in a cold bathtub.
Imagine the fear that beautiful child must have felt. Imagine the agony. Imagine the cruelty and selfishness of her slaughter. Imagine her light extinguished by the brutality and darkness of a cold, calculating killer.
Imagine justice for this innocent victim.
All you can do is imagine it, because in this life, there will be none.
The District Attorney in Boulder announced late last week that no murder charges will be filed in the case. Lane will stand accused of attempted murder for stabbing Mrs. Wilkins, along with a host of other crimes, but no matter how long she ultimately spends in prison, the fact remains that she will not have to answer for killing a child.
She will get away with murder.
The prosecutor says his hands are tied, and he's right, only he neglects to mention that he helped tie them. The Boulder DA has open connections to the abortion industry, and publicly supported the law now preventing him from charging Lane with murder.
Unless it can be proven that the infant took a breath outside of the womb, the law does not consider her a person. Of course, the police report says the "fetus" gasped for breath, and emergency room personnel said she was "viable," but none of this can be proven, so as far as Colorado is concerned, she wasn't a person.
But why should her personhood be hinged on whether she took a breath outside of the womb in the first place? Are hospital patients who require ventilators not people? If I hold my breath, do I forfeit my humanity for those brief moments? And if breathing outside of the womb is the completely capricious standard for "personhood," and if that made sense, which it emphatically doesn't, then what was she if not a person?
A hologram? A hallucination? A phantom? A flamingo?
Nobody can answer these questions; it doesn't matter to the pro-aborts, anyway. Colorado's official legal position, regardless of its staggering idiocy and barbarity, is that unborn babies aren't real people -- a view shared by millions of Americans in every state across the nation.
But don't worry. While the literal and actual dehumanization of infant children happens in Colorado, a protest movement gathers steam around the country.
Celebrities, politicians, businessmen and regular citizens are taking to the streets to lash out against the devastating violation of basic human dignity. The media is reporting about it breathlessly, demanding answers from all involved and stopping at nothing until the perpetrators are exposed and shamed.
Americans of all stripes are coming together, warriors for liberty and truth, bravely declaring their resolve. They will boycott an entire state just to make the point that the oppression inflicted by that state's government on the weakest and most helpless among us cannot be tolerated or condoned.
Together they stand like rebels against the tyranny of evil men. Freedom fighters, struggling against all odds, screaming to the heavens so that God Himself might hear them: Justice will be done, they cry! Justice!
...But not in Colorado.
Don't be silly, the national outrage has nothing to do with dead babies, instead it's all targeted at Indiana. No, not because anyone's life is in jeopardy, but because a few homosexuals might be inconvenienced when attempting to purchase consumer goods.
Indeed, as babies are explicitly excluded from basic legal protections and the most fundamental of human rights, the attention of the country focuses on a religious freedom bill, passed last week, which might, in some limited circumstances, interfere with a gay couple's ability to procure baked goods. Liberals throughout the land are frantic over the prospect that homosexuals may possibly, in some potential situations, experience the moderate nuisance of a business owner declining to participate in their gay wedding.
Cakes for gay people, that's the issue of the day. The widespread legalization of child murder? Well, why would anyone be upset about that?
You might think these two things are unrelated, and to liberals they are, and that's the point.
The liberal philosophy of human rights is utterly random and disjointed, which is why their opinion can't be believed or listened to or treated with respect. It's an insane, rambling, mess of jumbled, moronic nonsense, where each right is severed and disconnected from the other with nothing tying it all together.
Just think about this for a minute.
[sharequote align="center"]In their minds, there exists the fundamental human right to a wedding cake, but not to life itself.[/sharequote]
You need to understand how astonishingly incomprehensible progressivism is. In their minds, there exists the fundamental human right to a wedding cake, but not to life itself. If a man is refused a pastry, a crime against humanity has occurred. But if, in the womb, his spinal cord is severed, his body dismembered, and his lifeless carcass thrown in a dumpster, nobody can be accused of infringing on his liberty.
So whatever supernatural force bestows us with our right to commodities, this omnipotent being did not, it turns out, also give us the right to exist to begin with. You have the right to have, but not to be, which seems like a logistical complication considering the minor difficulty of having something when you aren't something. Might abortion be opposed, then, on the grounds that murdering a child will impede his right to eventually have his gay wedding catered by the business of his choosing?
I suppose that's a path pro-lifers haven't explored.
Speaking of which, interestingly, we're told gays have the right to marry and buy cakes and so forth because gay is not a choice. And gay is not a choice, they say, because gays are gay from birth. And if gays are gay from birth, then the matter is genetic, and if it's genetic then gays are gay even before birth. But if gays are gay before birth, then it would seem that they were them in the womb. In other words, whatever their nature is, their essence, they had that, they were that, in the womb. And if they are now what they were then, and were then what they are now, then either they're people now and they were people then, or they weren't people then and they aren't now.
I don't actually believe there's such a thing as a gay unborn child, but the fact that we are even debating the issue seems to indicate that we all acknowledge unborn children exist, are alive, are human, and are people. The moment you say "I was X since before I was born," you are admitting to the rather unavoidable truth that you were you before you were born. If "person" is integral to the definition of "you," then you must always have been a person for as long as you've been you.
Sorry. Look at me wasting my breath trying to convince you that people are people are people. This isn't exactly some unattainable revelation that must be passed down to us by a higher intelligence. That fact that people are people is arguably the most self-evident reality in the universe.
A creature is whatever it is. It can adapt and change and grow, but it cannot alter its nature. It cannot morph from one essence to another. Once it is, it is. It cannot be just a potentiality. The moment it becomes, it is an actuality, not a potential actuality. You can't be mere potential, because then you wouldn't be, do you see?
Good Lord, now I'm turning into Doctor Suess.
Look, this is elementary logic. Like, well below first grade level. So elementary that children (or "half-people," using liberal terminology) understand it on an instinctual level. They might have to learn what a horse or a pig is, but once they're taught, they'll likely never ask whether a horse can be a horse but not a horse at the same time. No, it'll take at least 12 years of public school and four years at college for them to get that dumb.
At which point, with their brains all mushy and susceptible from prolonged exposure to modern education, you might be able to convince them that human rights are things which grant gays in Indiana the entitlement to wedding photography, but don't necessarily grant infants in Colorado the luxury of not being brutally executed.
I'm picking on Colorado, but they aren't unique in their horrific, cruel dehumanization of children. Babies aren't considered people anywhere in the country. Planned Parenthood murders over 300,000 of these mysteriously unhuman creatures every year, and does so with not only the approval of the government, but with considerable financial support.
(However, destroying unborn bald eagles is still a federal crime, carrying a sentence of two years imprisonment. Apparently, an eagle is an eagle from the moment of conception.)
In all 50 states, unborn children are offered fewer legal protections than pit bulls, polar bears, and spotted owls. Consequentially, about 60 million have been exterminated in this country since 1973, and not a single murder charge was handed down. Sixty million. Think of the Holocaust repeated every decade for one hundred years. That's the body count we're dealing with. Only, many of the German Nazis were eventually tried and executed for their crimes, while the American Nazis are treated to banquets with the president.
Colorado stands out from the pack to some extent because, unlike many other states, it does not grant personhood to unborn infants even when the child is killed by someone other than the mother.
As horrific as that is, you can't deny their consistency.
Is it better that laws be passed making it explicit that the murder of an unborn child is only OK when her mother commits it? I suppose protecting some children is better than protecting none, but I look at states where abortion is legal (all of them), yet "fetal homicide" is still against the law (most of them), and I can't help but shudder at the idea that, in those places, motherhood has been specifically codified as the legal and moral parameters for child killing.
Is it a greater injustice, then, to hinge the humanity of a child on the circumstances in which it is murdered, and to make, of all things, motherhood the special safe haven for this unspeakable evil?
I don't know. There aren't any good answers.
These are the impossible choices our society faces when it starts from the principle that unborn children aren't people. They're all false choices in the end if they're grounded in that wicked premise. The only real solution is to fight to preserve and protect the humanity of all babies, no matter the circumstances.
[sharequote align="center"]The only solution is to fight to protect the humanity of all babies, no matter the circumstances.[/sharequote]
And, really, no discussion of human rights makes any sense so long as the pro-choice premise stands. This past week just illustrated that in such a profound way. The bodies of dead children pile up all around us, and here we argue about our right to cake, and if not to cake then to a job, or to a college education, or to food stamps, or to internet access. Our children have the rights of cockroaches, and yet we're off in the weeds whining like brats, yammering for more accommodations.
Our babies have been cast into the basement like rodents, and we lounge upstairs, complaining that the pillows on the king size bed in our master suite aren't quite fluffy enough.
We have a right to fluffy pillows! Our children? They have the right to a quick death, or maybe not even that.
Are you disgusted yet? You should be. Our culture has been poisoned by progressive thought, and progressivism is one of the most selfish and nonsensical ideologies to ever be birthed onto this Earth from the bowels of Hell.
Emphasis, by the way, on nonsensical.
After all, the only way to argue that a person has a right to some kind of product is to propose that human life is so precious and so ordained with supernatural entitlement that we must be handed everything we want, no matter what it is.
I would consider this a misapplication of the "human life is precious" theme, but at least if the argument was grounded in that idea, it would make some kind of half-baked sense. But it isn't. Liberals claim a right to everything but life for the unborn, meaning life is not precious at all. And if it's not precious, and if it can be murdered without consequence, then by what logic could this worthless, parasitic lump of flesh and bones possibly justify its right to anything else, much less desserts and photography sessions?
None of it makes any sense.
Children are dying.
They are being slaughtered, you frivolous fools. And all you're worried about is your right to be fat and pampered.
This is truly a sick, sick culture we are living in, and one day soon we all better wake up.
Listen to Matt's latest podcast here. Contact Matt with general comments and speaking engagement request at MattWalsh@TheMattWalshBlog.com
TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual author.