The Supreme Court upheld an acquittal of the midwife, ruling that the unborn baby was not a human being, and thus no homicide took place.Objectively speaking, there is no rational argument that can be made to substantiate anything other than that human life begins at conception.
The ruling stated that "even if a Caesarean section was possible, the mother did not have labor pains, which is the beginning of childbirth, thus the unborn baby cannot be recognized as a human being."
Is it alive?
Is it genetically human life? Yes.
Therefore, it is a human life that is being killed in an abortion.
Quid pro quo.
(Note that this argument does not make reference to any theological or politico-philosophical ideology. It is basic observation and deduction.)
Rational arguments in favor of abortion, as opposed to those that rely on emotion or ad hominem, are cloaked in terms of political rights, and specifically that a woman's 'right' to an abortion is somehow part of political, legal, and 'moral' equality between men and women. Viewed in that light, the story in question could be considered a balanced decision regarding a very unfortunate circumstance.
But the fact remains that a child, a human being, died. Whether the South Korean Supreme Court says it or not, whether the US Supreme Court says it or not, it is so.
It is so.
The question is whether one considers human life disposable, and if so then under what circumstances and by which criteria one makes that decision.
The original AisiaNews article may be found here.