The author is correct that this is an inconsistency in pro-lifers.
Are you equally anxious to see Jeffrey Daumer made “restored and whole?” Or do you preach vengeance for him, but not for her? If so, on what logical basis?
Dahmer knew what he was doing. In many cases women who get abortions are not fully aware of the magnitude of their decision and are usually counselled (preyed upon) to do so by those on the left with an agenda. They are talked into it. Then regret it the rest of their lives.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Christ's forgiveness is extended to us no matter what we have done in the past. That is not saying that we should turn murderers and rapists free based on that forgiveness. The common laws given to man hold consequences for having been broken, and in such cases we should expect that we, and others will suffer the consequences of our actions. Justice, a concept that comes from God, requires no less. However, it is not for us to say what will happen to this person spiritually after the fact. It is our duty to confront, admonish, restore, and disciple one another, not to stand as judge jury and executioner. However, if I was as perfect as you two seem to think that you are I would have no problem doing that.
I am not saying that we give these people a pass, but rather that we seek to show Christ's love to them, as He, and others He has put into our lives) have showed it to us, not write them off, based on a mistake.
This is not an inconsistency in principle, but a requirement of law enforcement policy.
Law is not required, nor can it be required, to perfectly express justice in an unexceptionable way. It can only restrain the most publicly objectionable practices, and then only in most cases.
For example, the law does not arrest people for "private lying" which does not involve fraud, breach of contract or the like. "Private lying" maybe just as morally heinous, but public authorities simply cannot monitor private communications, and if they attempted to do so, they would do more harm to legitimate personal privacy through universal surveillance than the good they might accomplish.
Concerning abortion: this kind of homicide is harder to prove than other murders, because the victim's very existence may be unknown to every other person on earth except for the mother, and she can "privately" abort using herbal remedies or prescription medicines, for instance a large dose of oral contracaptives, without even facing the inconvenient necessity of disposing of a large And recognizable body.
Therefore the only effective way to use legal power to curb massive numbers of abortions is to focus on shutting down the medical-abortion complex, the funding through insurers and public agencies, concentrating prosecutorial attention on the professional abortionists.
And just about the only way to successfully obtain a conviction would be through the testimony of a woman whose child he aborted: a woman who sees herself as a victim who was exploited by the abortionist.
This is not an entire fiction. Most abortionists are flagrantly guilty of not providing adequate information for tthe woman to make an informed consent, and therefore young and ignorant women often do not possess a criminal mens rea, a sufficent awareness that she is killing a baby.
The doctor, of course, knows. Prosecute the doctors with the cooperation of women who are seen as his victims, and you've shut down most of the abortion industry.