In this time and age, abortion is commonly understood as the intentional or deliberate ejection or eviction of a live, immature or non-viable fetus from the mother’s womb. Suction, dilation, curettage and use of abortive pills – these are the more ordinary means of performing abortion in these days and in the different parts of the world, irrespective of whether it is done officially or openly, clandestinely or surreptitiously. It is strange that just as much money, time and effort are spent in saving lives from diseases and sickness, so too in nothing less than killing of the healthy and hearty unborn babies – through abortion.
The top-of-the line question that seeks an answer is the following: Who are held responsible for the murder of an unborn fetus in different parts of the globe, viz., who are the concrete individuals who are considered accountable for the killing of an unborn child in this Country as well? The answer to this cardinal question is the following: The initiating and/or insistent father and/or demanding or consenting mother of the murder of their own unborn baby, their prodding relatives and/or supportive friends, the abortionist be this a medical professional or a mere commercial agent, the nurses in assistance and other active helpers in bringing the process to completion, the manufacturer as well as the seller of abortive means – all these are considered agents of abortion.
The above identified usual agents of abortion are thus qualified as far as their respective responsibility or accountability is concerned in the crime of abortion: Principal or incidental agent. Official or auxiliary cause. Formal or accessory author. And specifically in conjunction with the determination of their moral guilt or accountability, there are three more relevant considerations in this matter: One, the abortion is in fact done. The moral censure is very much less in the event that the abortion is not brought to completion. Two, the abortionist is the most culpable agent. All others participate in more or less culpability, depending on the function or role they played in making the abortion an actual fact. Three, the penalty is either criminal before the State forbidding abortion and/or penal before the Church abhorring abortion.
If comparison is acceptable, who commits a bigger crime and thereby incurs a bigger guilt: Someone who murders a capable man or able woman for whatever cause or somebody who kills an innocent and helpless unborn baby for whatever reason? Who then incurs a bigger crime, who deserves a likewise bigger punishment? Would you still need scientific research or professional advice to answer the question credibly and clearly?