Legalizing abortion after-birth: Infanticide?

Murder of live baby. Murder or abortion?

Professor Gene Veith posted on the Cranach blog about a recent abortion bill in Virginia.

Governor Northam (D-VA) expressed his opinion on whether a baby who is born (already out of the womb) would get to live or die.

“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,” [Virginia governor Ralph] Northam said, alluding to the physician and mother discussing whether the born infant should live or die.” (video here).

This is so clearly murder and NOT abortion. Once a life is already outside of the woman’s womb, even a pro-choice advocate would consider that a life independent of the mother.

I echo Veith’s sentiment exactly: “There is no limit to what pro-abortionists would do to an unwanted child. No limit.”

Another blogger, Mary Pezzulo at the Steel Magnificat blog blogged a well thought out post of great examples that distinguish life and death situations in the context of abortion. It’s definitely worth the read.

This issue is going way too far. Liberals have been pushing further and further on abortion. They’ve gone well beyond what most people would feel comfortable with. To even consider this issue is so far away from common sense.

Those who may be pro-choice could shy away from this opinion.

Pro-abortion activists already have their way and they want more. This bill already written will likely not pass a Republican majority in the house.

Having a woman make a decision on what to do with her body is one thing, but once a baby is outside of the womb, that life is the life beyond the mother.

The baby that is living and breathing on its own clearly has a life of its own. Ending that baby’s life would be killing and murder. Period.

Is one life more valuable than the other? Is one life worth less than the other? How would the intentional ending of the life not be considered murder?

There is a case in Ontario, Canada where a nurse was tried and convicted of murder in a senior’s retirement home. She will be going to jail. Note: killing without their consent. The killing of a senior citizen is clearly murder. Seems to be no denial by liberals yet anyway.

What is the difference between a 100-year-old man or woman and a newborn baby? Additional consideration: both have deformities. Thrown in one more consideration. In both cases, the two lives are “Unviable” and would not live longer than 1-3 years.

In my humble opinion, there is no difference. Life is life–no matter one’s age.

This can be a very slippery slope. The factor comes down to timing. Yes, timing.

Consider this. To allow that same baby to live a little longer into infancy or toddlerhood, it becomes a case of murder.

In this case, moral judgment in the killing of a baby (already born / out of the womb) has become blurred in the minds of some liberals. Where is their moral compass?

How far can we let this nonsense go? I am so glad the March for Life 2019 (DC) (blogged here) was so well attended. As a society, we need to take a stand and not be afraid to take a clear stand on these moral issues.

Trump, Pence, Shapiro speak at March for Life

Yesterday was the 45th March for Life in Washington DC.  Amazing to see so many people who love life walking together in peace to declare and support that God-given life from the womb is precious and ought to be protected.  Very encouraging to pro-life Americans (and non-Americans) today.

Estimates of numbers who marched range from many tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands. Very possible given the crowd size.  The pro-life movement is gaining ground.

President Trump and Vice-President Mike Pence were forthright in their support of life.

Conservative commentator, Ben Shapiro, opened the gathering in speaking first.

“America was founded on the promise of God-given rights, chief among them the rights to life and liberty,” Shapiro said. But while once America’s children were her most prized group,” then something happened. We decided to erase them […] we lied to ourselves, and then we built walls around that lie.” 

“We pretended these were not human lives at all, but disposable balls of meat,” he continued, after detailing multiple scientific truths of fetal development denied by the abortion lobby. “We told ourselves we were virtuous for our lie. We reversed good and evil.”

Shapiro then cited Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s comment this week that pro-lifers are “not in line with where we are as a government and quite frankly where we are as a society.”  “Maybe they’re right. Maybe we today here are not in line with the rest of society,” Shapiro said. “To which I say, good. So were the abolitionists. So were the civil rights marchers. So were the martyrs in Rome and the Jews in Egypt. Righteousness doesn’t have to be popular; it just has to be righteous.”  (Read further at LifeSite here.)

[added: Interesting how young pro-lifers are not necessarily religious. Pro-life just makes common sense. Life is not just based on morality, but is also science-based too. ]