From my study of ancient history I knew that infanticide was common. Simply put, infanticide is the intentional killing of a newly born infant.
It was done various reasons such religious sacrifice (Babylonia, Carthage), sex-selection (Greece and China with males being preferred), poverty (many cultures), postpartum birth control (Arabia before Islam) or simply not wanting the child. In fact most cultures practiced infanticide of one form or another. Notable exceptions include ancient Egypt and Judea.
Although the practice continued in many places Christianity was the driving force (Constantine made it a crime in 318 A.D.) that ended the practice or drove it far underground.
Abortion on the other hand was also common. Abortion is the killing of an infant yet not born. Christianity saw infanticide and abortion as the same thing and thought it barbaric (do not murder a child by abortion or kill a new-born infant. Didache-150 A.D.).
My reason for this brief history lesson on infanticide and abortion is to comment on the logic of Kermit Gosnell who was recently convicted of the infanticide (technically neonaticide, the killing of an infant within 24 hours of birth) of three babies who survived a botched abortion.
One aspect of the case that caught my attention was the report that 9 of 12 jurors were pro-choice, that is for abortion but apparently not for infanticide. While I am grateful for their twist on logic I’m convinced they have made a distinction without making a difference.
Gosnell’s logic was what’s the difference if the baby dies from the abortion (still inside the womb) or dies being snipped minutes after exiting the womb?
The issue cuts to the heart of the abortion debate. The culture is confused and as we’ve seen from the Gosnell case inconsistent.
Apparently, it is less horrifying and barbaric to kill a baby inside the womb than it is to kill it outside the womb just because it managed to survive a botched killing inside.
This is what happens when man’s law triumphs over what God has to say.