As reported by Fox News and other sources, an Ohio jury has convicted former police officer Bobby Cutts Jr. of murdering his pregnant girlfriend and their unborn baby girl. He could face the death penalty.
The jury reportedly accepted the prosecutor's argument that Cutts strangled his girlfriend because of mounting child support.
Can someone help me understand this: What is the difference between Cutts killing his unborn baby because he can't afford to support another child, and a doctor killing an unborn baby because the mother can't afford to support another child?
Why is this unborn baby's killing regarded as murder, but abortion isn't? What the father did is murder, but if the mother sought and obtained an abortion for the same reason it's legal? What's wrong with this picture?
Further proof of the irrationality of Roe v. Wade and legal abortion.
It's a child, not a choice!
It will be interesting to see if the mainstream media mentions this angle on the story. It will also be interesting to see how abortion rights advocates dance around it -- if they dare to respond to it at all.