Raizy and Nathan Glauber, both 21 and newlyweds, called a cab to take them to the hospital. Raizy was seven months pregnant and was experiencing complications; her husband accompanied her to the hospital. On the way there, their cab was hit by a BMW, travelling at least 60 mph, with such force that Raizy was ejected from the car. Americans cheered as surgeons were able to deliver her baby by C-section. Tragically, that baby boy died hours ago. (News stories here, here, here, here, and here, for starters.)
I have nothing against cheering for the survival of that little boy, and then mourning his passing – he is the third person that died in the accident. But the moral schizophrenia is amazing. There are no calls to term the baby boy a “lump of tissue” or “not yet a person”. No one thinks any mourners are crazy for being saddened by his loss. Yet, it would have been legal for Raizy Glauber to abort him; four Supreme Court justices believe that it would have been her constitutional right to do so, for any reason or no reason at all. Doctors who saved his life – if even for a day – are lauded as heroes, while those who attempt to save other little babies of the same age are termed violent, right-wing, woman-hating, anti-choice lunatics.
There are heartbreaking times in which a woman must choose between her self and her child – situations in which only one will emerge alive. That we may allow abortion in that instance is not a launching pad for abortion that borders on infanticide; it is a reflection on our understanding that such extreme circumstances allow for unusual exceptions to the law. We would not say, “If conjoined twins are to separate, and the operation goes wrong, the one on the left must be left alive, and the one on the right would die,” because we know those people are equal. The same rationale leads us to forbid killing the twin on the right based on the whims of the twin on the left: they are equal, so one may not slaughter the other. The pro-abortion logic, however, starts with the extreme cases of dying women and dying babies, then tries to say that women may kill their children so as to avoid moving to Staten Island and shopping for mayo at Costco.
As a final thought to how schizophrenic our culture is, Jennifer Morbelli was nine weeks further along in her pregnancy than was Raizy Glauber; the death of Mrs. Morbelli was ignored by the media, but Mrs. Glauber’s death was front-page news. Mrs. Glauber may be a crime victim; police are still investigating. Likewise, Morbelli may have been the victim of a crime, or medical negligence; police are still investigating. Both women were in their twenties, in the third trimester with wanted babies. Both women had their names and photos splashed across the news, although it took much longer for the mainstream media to acknowledge Morbelli’s death. It is not clear how the media got its detailed information about Raizy Glauber’s death nor the birth of her baby boy; it is entirely possible that someone violated HIPAA or other privacy laws to make that information public. (The NYT article implies that an EMT at the scene spoke with bystanders.) Yet some people are making themselves semi-famous by trashing those who write about Jennifer Morbelli, and maintain absolute silence about the privacy rights of the entire Glauber family.