The act that occurred outside the womb is not just easily definable as a crime, it is easily understood as a crime. In a state of nature, sans government, intentionally killing a live baby is still aberrant because it is hard-coded — somewhere in those hated base pairs, Ms. Steinem, we’ll find it there eventually — that mentally stable humans wish to live. Even babies too young to fathom their own existence: note they are composed of elements designed for survival in their habitat, like limbs and lungs, so just like every other species, they were born to survive. Note that the nervous system is in on it, too — newborns avoid discomfort and pain, and do not attempt to kill themselves.
So: we say things like “inalienable right to life” not because it sounds like a lovely “mission statement,” but because we discovered it was true.
To define one act as murder and the other as … well, as nothing at all particularly, just as an action, the burden of proof is on the pro-choice movement to offer evidence that some change occurred during birth that properly defines the difference between life and not life.
They have the burden, and not the pro-life movement, because the rights of the live baby are easily understood and apparent. Even if the status of the unborn baby is proven to be “unknowable,” the pro-life movement still has no burden because they aren’t the ones interested in doing anything. The pro-choice movement is the side trying to do something: namely, abort. If you want to perform an action, that action must be legal — as in sans government, “state of nature” legal.
How has Gosnell changed the discourse? Irrelevant, manmade concepts such as “viability,” “wanted vs. unwanted,” “woman’s right to choose,” etc., now have been widely revealed and understood as “running away from reason” topics — which they logically must be. And so, for the first time, the pro-choice movement is being pressed to answer a question that logically has something to do with … abortion.
Here’s that question:
Is there any proof — or even evidence — that the passage through the birth canal transforms the unborn from something not in possession of an inalienable right to life to someone who does possess it? Manmade laws are irrelevant here: in the state of nature, does this transformation actually occur?
If the pro-choice crowd is in possession of this proof, they have been holding their cards for quite a while. As it stands, mankind is unable to prove a transformation occurs.
Bigger uh-oh: logically, this lack of proof does not simply criminalize late-term abortion. If the full-term unborn baby can not be proven bereft of the right to life, the pro-choice crowd then bears the burden of retracing the pregnancy — second by second — to find the moment when Nature bestows that right.
The reasoned, logical, unassailable truth — my emotions, Gloria Steinem’s emotions, Kermit Gosnell’s emotions being objectively irrelevant — is that no proof of this transformation can be identified tracing back to conception, therefore it occurs at conception.
Am I pro-life? Does Gloria Steinem believe in legal abortion in all circumstances? Enough already: our opinions on food and movies would be precisely as relevant.
After Gosnell, the intellectually honest and inquisitive must accept that abortion necessarily involves the taking of life, which means pro-abortion arguments must necessarily collapse upon themselves and disappear. Of course, intellectual honesty is not a requirement, but a choice.