If you are half as appauled as I am, take a moment.
The article claims this story has "shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate." I'm shocked it shocks pro-abortionists. If you favor killing a baby before it is born and throwing it out in the biohazard trash then, why is killing a baby after it is born and throwing it in the trash so shocking? What is the difference between an unborn 23-week baby and a born 23-week baby? The kicker? The so-called mother is suing the so-called doctor and his
clinic for not being there in time to perform the abortion properly. So, she wanted the "doctor" to kill her baby in utero but killing her baby after it was born is worth a lawsuit? Why?
"It really disturbed me," said Joanne Sterner, president of the Broward County chapter of the National Organization for Women, after reviewing the administrative complaint against Renelique. "I know that there are clinics out there like this. And I hope that we can keep (women) from going to these types of clinics."
So, the National Organization of Women wants women to be able to kill their children in utero but are "disturbed" that their babies be killed after they are born even when the baby was intended to be aborted. Why? What is the difference?
It boggles my mind that pro-abortionists see a difference. It is like Nazism. How do you look at a Christian and a Jew and say one deserves to live and one is expendable? How do you look at a newborn baby grasping his little fingers around your one and say that baby has rights and deserves to be protected and provided for but look at an unborn baby bouncing and kicking in his mother's womb and say that baby is expendable? What kind of blinders do you have to have on to see such a difference? The world asked how the Nazis could perform such atrocities. Abortion is no less such an atrocity and if you favor killing an unborn baby simply because it is unborn, you have no foundation on which to stand to claim that any born baby is any less expendable.