Michelle Wilkins’ Murdered Child Only Had Value Because She Wanted It

On March 18th, a pregnant Michelle Wilkins went to the home of Dynel Lane, who had posted an ad on Craigslist for baby clothes. When Wilkins arrived at Lane’s home to purchase the clothes, she was attacked. Lane cut open Wilkins’ stomach and tore her baby from her uterus. Wilkins survived, but the child did not.

This story has made headlines and mortified many Americans—as well it should. This was the gruesome act of an insane or purely evil person. However, some who are upset have no right to be. I’m talking about pro-choice Americans.

Ask any pro-choice American if this 34 week-old infant was murdered, and they’ll likely say yes. Ask them why, and they’ll breathlessly tell you “It was a baby, that’s why!” Then ask them if they support abortion. By this point, if they have any intelligence at all, they’ll be on to your game. They will then explain to you—as if you’re a slow kid—that while they support abortion, it was clear that Michelle Wilkins wanted her child, and intended on having it. Ipso facto, it was a baby.

And that’s where the logic train goes off the tracks. In our society, the left will tell you that a gestating fetus is only human so long as it is wanted. If it isnot wanted, it is not human, and is therefore terminable. There was a time when they argued viability–and some still do–but the smarter pro-abortionists have changed their argument as science has revealed what pro-lifers have always known: life begins at conception. A fetus is a human being in development, no matter the stage–or as Dr. Seuss would say: A person’s a person, no matter how small.

The current argument is that a fetus does not have the right to “hijack” a woman’s body. It’s her body, and it’s her choice. It’s a much more ideologically consistent, though morally repugnant, argument. This argument degrades one life in favor of another. The life of a fetus is only as valuable as the desire to have it. It is a chronology-based argument in which one life is more valuable simply by virtue of age.

Given that, if someone who claims to be pro-choice is repulsed by this heinous crime, they must also acknowledge that their disgust is only proportionate to the perceived desire Wilkins had for her child. This leads one to ask a simple question: If Wilkins was on her way to an abortion clinic to have the fetus terminated and was attacked in the same manner, would you be so disgusted? If you answer yes, you are ideologically inconsistent, and I would advise you to reassess your opinions.

Life either has value or it doesn’t. If the value of life is based in chronology, a mother will always have the right to kill her child–at least until they leave the home—because the child will always be needy and inferior. A child will always need to be provided for, and as such, it is tethered to its mother, even if not physically.

A child can be said to be hijacking its mother’s life even after birth, so if that’s the argument—that a child’s value is proportional to a mother’s want of it—then anyone who is pro-choice should also be pro-child murder.

Michelle Wilkins was to have a child. She wanted it, and therefore, it had value.

Michelle Wilkins was to have a child. It was a human being, and therefore, it had value.

Which one sounds better?