[Apologetics] To kill a child?

[Stephen Korsman]

Hi

I came across this CNN discussion on one of Obama's statements ... I don't quite understand the last section, but here it is:

Video: http://www.xanga.com/Catholic_Mommas/670198532/appalling.html; alternative - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPZCXcTwZPY
PDF containing the transcripts: http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf

Quote:

"Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute."

I don't understand what he means with the part underlined in green - "if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute."  If such a foetus is a child, it may or may not be an antiabortion statute; and I don't see how such a foetus NOT being a child would change that.  And with whatever sort of clause he wanted and got and ignored that would prevent the law from barring abortions, I am not sure that it would bar abortions as he seems to think.

My initial reading was that he was referring to two types of children - one that was nine months after birth, and another one that was born at term.  But after reading other people's interpretations, it does make more sense to me that he's referring to one type of child - a nine-month-old child that has just been born.

Interesting that he refers to a "child, a nine-month-old" in the same sentence as "delivered to term" - is he acknowledging that a child born at term is a nine-month-old child???

He doesn't seem to want them to be called children because then we can't kill them; so he seems to acknowledge that killing is involved.  And calling a child delivered to term "a nine-month-old" - if that is what he did - is quite contradictory, because it implies that 6 months prior to birth it was a three-month-old child.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
skorsman at theotokos.co.za
The Theotokos Website
A Rural Virologist  ||  RSS feed
Sabbath Keepers  ||  RSS feed
 
IC | XC
---------
NI | KA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gathman.org/pipermail/apologetics/attachments/20080821/167f3dcd/attachment.html>