I was listening to Rush Limbaugh this afternoon when I heard a caller make an excellent point. He wondered why it was OK and necessary to show Baltimore Ravens player Ray Rice punching his wife Janay Palmer Rice and knocking her out, but it was wrong to show pictures of aborted babies.

If we are to bring attention to wife beating any way we can, especially when there is a video showing what real domestic violence is all about, one has to wonder why pro-abortionists don’t want pictures of aborted babies shown. If abortion is no big deal, one would think that the abortionists would want that shown.

What are the abortionists hiding? What do they fear? What don’t they want low information voters to see?

Jeffrey Toobin is CNN senior legal analyst is right when he maintains that “wife-beating is not a private matter. If this is true, and it is, then killing unborn babies shouldn’t be a private matter either.

Pro-abortionists are even against having women view an ultrasound that shows what they are aborting.

Janay Palmer Rice, using the “it’s a private matter” argument, is borrowing from the pro-abortion playbook:

“After TMZ released the video of the elevator assault, Janay Rice released a statement of support for her husband, on Instagram. ‘To take something away from the man I love that he has worked for all his life just to gain ratings is horrific,’ she wrote, ‘If your intentions were to hurt us, embarrass us, make us feel alone, take our happiness away, you’ve succeeded on so many levels. Just know we will continue to grow & show the world what love is.’”

Like the woman who says that killing her unborn baby is between her and her doctor, Janay Palmer Rice is saying, it’s between her and Ray.

Toobin goes on to argue:

“It’s not up to victims to decide whether their husbands should be prosecuted. Abusers damage the community, not just the women they assault. Whether the Rices and Fullers stay married is their business; but whether Ray Rice and Judge Mark Fuller committed crimes should be a question for prosecutors, and ultimately, juries to decide.”

Abortion kills a living child and thus cheapens life. If it’s OK to kill an unborn child up until the point of birth, then why not an hour later, a day, a week, month, or year? Implausible? Think again. Scott Klusendorf writes the following in “Peter Singer’s Bold Defense of Infanticide”:

“In 1993, ethicist Peter Singer shocked many Americans by suggesting that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth and that the attending physician should kill some disabled babies on the spot. Five years later, his appointment as Decamp Professor of Bio-Ethics at Princeton University ignited a firestorm of controversy, though his ideas about abortion and infanticide were hardly new. In 1979 he wrote, ‘Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons’; therefore, ‘the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.’1

If wife beating violence is morally wrong, it’s hard for to imagine why a woman killing her unborn baby is not the worst kind of domestic violence.

1. Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 1st ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 122–23. [↩]