Why is Planned Parenthood’s Dumpster More Moral than Shelby Taylor’s?

It is impossible to read this story and not confront an uncomfortable, confounding, mind-bending, and haunting reality.

It’s a heartbreaking and tragic story of another lost soul choosing the wicked god of self over the God of life. Just a few months ago, Shelby Taylor was sentenced to 25 years in prison for an unconscionably callous act of evil committed against her own newborn baby girl.

When she was 23 years old, Taylor gave birth to a baby girl and promptly threw the child, crying and covered with blood and afterbirth, into a dumpster:

Police say the newborn infant had been thrown into a dumpster and only located after a man heard noises coming from a nearby dumpster when he took out his trash. According to the police report, the man thought the noises were from an animal but upon further investigation, discovered the baby girl.

The baby girl, who still had an umbilical cord attached to her body, was estimated to be just a few hours old, police said at the time of the discovery.

It’s hard to read this story and not experience a profound sense of sorrow and distress about the devil’s relentless efforts to tempt and torment the mind of man until we surrender to his will and commit acts so thoroughly and objectively wicked.

But it is also impossible to read this story and not acknowledge a mind-bending and confounding reality: had Shelby Taylor entered a Planned Parenthood facility that very day and had her baby girl decapitated and dismembered for a price, our society would justify that as a moral right of empowerment and liberty. But since she waited a couple hours and, with as horrible as her act of callous abandonment was, still gave her child a fighting chance at survival, she is going to prison for 25 years.

This is not just morally incongruent, it is the height of absurdity. And obviously Shelby’s circumstance is not unique. One need only think back to the tragic end of Laci and Conner Peterson years ago in California. Husband and father Scott Peterson murdered his wife Laci and unborn son Conner on Christmas Eve in 2002. He was charged, found guilty, and sentenced for both crimes.

No one can logically or morally object to Scott’s rightful punishment for depriving his own son of his right to life. Yet, had Laci made the individual decision to enter an abortion facility that same Christmas Eve to have Conner burned to death with saline, and then had his charred body extricated with surgical saws and forceps, there would have been no legal consequence.

Not to be overly dramatic, but it seems reasonable to conclude that a society so ordered on contradictory logic and self-serving legal incongruities cannot long endure. Something needs to change.

I would propose that we would be best served by upholding the Moral Law of God testified to in our country’s Declaration of Independence that maintains the gift of human life is the first inviolable right bestowed by a transcendent power upon all humanity. All humanity includes tiny humans at early stages of development - that's Shelby Taylor's child 5 minutes before birth as well as 5 minutes after.

For those who would object, do they propose we continue ignoring these gallingly obvious inconsistencies? Because that won't work long term. So what is the better solution?

Comments
No. 1-22
mudskipper
mudskipper

"Not to be overly dramatic.." you write. But, of course, you are. Shelby couldn't have entered a Planned Parenthood clinic and received an abortion that very day because her state outlaws abortions after the 25th week or so. Most states ban abortions or strictly limit them sometime starting in the second trimester. And Laci Peterson was 8 months pregnant--long past the time at which unrestricted abortions are permitted in California. The law is not as incongruent as you are portraying it.

Phillyman1
Phillyman1
I agree with you wholeheartedly but fear you are just "preaching to the choir."  

In the Book of Revelation chapter 22 (verses 10 & 11) the angel declares, "... The time is at hand.  He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous still; he who is holy, let him be holy still."

The angel's declaration seems almost anarchistic.  I agree more with the Westminster Confession of Faith, which states that governments are to reward the good (including true religion) and punish evil.  Nevertheless, what the angel declares remains in the Word of God, in order to teach us that we cannot transform society ourselves.  Hearts must be changed, and ultimately God alone does that.  This does not mean that we should not work for good legislation.  I was encouraged by reading an article in the NYT about pro-Life people knocking on doors in Indiana to try to end abortion.  That truly seems like a work of God's Spirit.
AJ_Liberty
AJ_Liberty

"will the entity in question go to Heaven and spend eternity with God?"

I'm comfortable saying that the Bible is unclear on the matter....and any answers are humans speculating....or extrapolating. We simply have no good information about who exactly is in heaven, in what form, and how precisely these spirits interact. The natural inclination is to think that all fundamentally innocent individuals would be there...though Catholics created the concept of Limbo for babies not baptized....and most Evangelicals require someone explicitly accepting Jesus Christ as their savior....so that individuals who never had such opportunity, but who are otherwise innocent, would not be in heaven...I suppose.

Jack_Krevin
Jack_Krevin

I'd prefer if we could be consistent, yes. If its okay to chop up a baby in the womb it should be okay to chop up the baby out of the womb. And if it isn't, if a difference of five minutes and a spatial location makes the dead too ghastly, maybe we should rethink some things.

lovinee
lovinee

@jacie29 A human can't become as such without carbon molecules either. I think there's a difference between the precursors of a human and a human.

In Jeremiah 1:5 God speaks of Jeremiah's formation. He deigns that Jeremiah will be born, and he will be a prophet. That doesn't really say anything about what the entity was before he actually was born. Indeed, God here speaks of Jeremiah before he was even conceived, so I'm not sure what this can say about the physical entity.

Moreover, when you get into the broader discussion of Free Will (which this passage illuminates) the only reasonable interpretation is that Jeremiah was a one-off creation of the Lord's. Otherwise you have to believe that all Men are predestined with some sort of specific plan, which doesn't jibe with the whole of other teachings (the Bible throughout speaks of choice among Men, which implies that Men have free will).

As for zygotes and embryos, I just can't get my head around how, anywhere in scripture, one can imagine God "knowing" such an entity. It just doesn't make sense.

Clearly this is a topic for faith, and I respect yours. But for me, that's where I come out on this.

Stories