Bedlam, USA: one act, one intent, two victims, two perpetrators, BUT....

The status of abortion law in America has made us an insane nation. It would be beyond the ability of God Himself to make the following situation rationally explicable, let alone morally sane.

A 19-year-old boy and his 17-year-old girlfriend committed fornication. As a result, the young woman conceived twin babies.

Four months after her willing invitation brought two babies to her womb, she regretted not having them killed earlier.

Evidently reasoning "better late than never," she then began trying to kill them. Ever the solicitous father, her partner in immorality became complicit in this act as well. He stepped on her, as she punched herself in the area of her womb -- the home into which they had both invited the babies.

Now, how would you expect a court to rule in such a case? There are two babies, both targets of the same deadly intent, by the same sorts of actions committed by both of these people. (The court was unable to determine which parent succeeded in killing the children.)

Well, think of an analogy. Frankly, my soul cringes from being too specific even in a "let's suppose" mockup, but briefly imagine two parents both engaged in killing a toddler. One act, right? Two complicit perpetrators. Same sentence for both. That would seem a sane conclusion.

It might be sane, but it isn't the state of law in America.

No, the court was forced to find the father guilty. The mother, however, was not charged with any crime.

Yes, you read right. In this same act, committed with the same intent, targeting the same defenseless children, the court was forced to issue two totally different verdicts.

The father was convicted of two counts of murder, and sentenced to life in prison.

The mother walked.

Why? Now, now; you know the answer.

He was committing murder. In the very same act, the mother was simply exercising her right to choose to have an abortion.

The mind reels, trying to find sanity in this mess. This means that the law is requiring us to see the same two children as part of the woman's body, and therefore subject to her whims and proffered no protection by law. Unpapered mutts in her parents' front yard have more protection. Snail darters have more protection. Spotted owls have more protection. Her unborn human babies, however, have none.

Well, no protection from her. But when their father assists their mother in killing them, he is a murderer -- for doing the same thing, to the same babies, with the same result.

If she wants to kill them, they are non-entities. If he wants to kill them (even with her permission and participation), they are human beings. In the same act of killing the same babies, he is guilty of murder, she is merely another poster-child heroine of "choice."

But if the boy had just had a medical degree, and had used a knife, he'd have walked away a hero. All because our all-knowing Supreme Court codified our soulless and irresponsible amorality by painting a bull's eye on babies.

Insanity. But then, God warned us long ago that the flight from Him is necessarily a journey into progressive insanity and chaos (Romans 1:18-32).

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I'll never be much impressed by the National Day of Prayer, until it follows a National Day of Repentance.

UPDATE: the more you know about this story, the sadder and uglier it is.