New Yorker Amy Richards killed two of her unborn children. The New York Times awarded the 34-year-old woman nearly a thousand words of column space. Further west in the Empire State, 31-year-old Stacey DeBeer killed two of her children too. And like Amy Richards, newspapers have devoted ink to her.

What's the difference between the two women? There is no ethical difference in their actions, only a legal distinction. You see, DeBeer killed her two infants after they had left her body. So, she will be serving thirty years to life. During that time, Amy Richards will be free to lecture on college campuses, peddle her theories in dark corners of the Internet, and participate in vacuous Manhattan political discussions.

"I had a recurring feeling that this was going to come back and haunt me," Richards recalls, but "everything is fine." DeBeer, who was sentenced yesterday, reacts quite differently to her offense. "I will live with this everyday," she said as she wept. "My babies deserved more."

Amy Richards' babies deserved more too.

I assume most people are repulsed by the DeBeers story. But if She killed the baby 10 minutes before the baby was delivered this would not be an issue. It instead would be her "choice" fully backed by the Supreme Court. Her crime was not killing her children but waiting those crucial few minutes to do it. If she grabbed a coat hanger 10 minutes earlier she would have avoided public humiliation and 30 years in jail.

This is the problem with the partial-birth abortion argument. The baby is mearly a part of the mother until the baby is born. Ony then does the baby deserve all the right of a human being. well, partial-birth abortion kills babies after the baby head is delivered up until his/her belly button is visible.
So the pro-abortion argument would be better stated: A baby only deserves basic human rights after the legs and feet are delivered. Those few seconds turn a "fetus" into a baby. YEAH RIGHT!