Ironic

An unborn baby today has more legal “protection” of his “right to die” than his “right to life.”

If an abortion is attempted and fails, the mother, for the infant after birth, can sue the doctor for “malpractice.” The crime: failure to kill the baby. The OB-GYN News recently reported how attorneys now can earn over a million dollars per year on suits like this “Cases involving…failed abortion have led to automatic settlements.”

The unborn child was a person when the “malpractice” occurred and under the equal protection clause deserves payment as an “injured” party, collectible at birth. If the newborn can collect damages from an “insult” (failure to be killed) incurred during gestation, this in itself confirms legal recognition that a person with legal rights truly did exist. The tragedy is that since the Supreme Court rulings of 1973 this legal recognition only occurs when life instead of death prevails. Why should this principle not be used to protect the life of the innocent victims? The law as it exists today says a fetus shall receive equal “protection” under the law while the law itself permits (and the government finances) his death. The fetus that deserves life—as all fetuses do—has no protection whatsoever. The law and the state thus become the enemies of life, not the protectors of life, just as they have become thieves when they confiscate property instead of protecting property by punishing theft and protecting rights of property ownership.

Ron Paul