I have pointed out before the absurd illogicity of legalizing abortion, particularly late-term abortions where the fetus is up to 24 weeks old (and has a skull that needs to be crushed, a brain that needs to be vacuumed out and limbs that need to be cut up to facilitate removal from the womb).
Compare and see:
Killing a baby in a crib = MURDER
Killing a pregnant woman = DOUBLE MURDER (one for the woman, one for the unborn child)
Killing a baby in the womb = LEGAL ABORTION
This is true, insofar as if the baby is not fully killed by the abortion procedure, leaving it to die in the clinic is prosecutable as infanticide.
So all that differentiates infanticide from legal abortion is a flap of flesh separating the baby from the outside world.
Of course, the logical conclusion would be that ABORTION = MURDER.
But no… I really shouldn’t be surprised that in this sinful, fallen world, the same comparison would instead lead to liberals concluding that INFANTICIDE = INALIENABLE RIGHT OF A MOTHER.
Via Moonbattery, a frightening truth is revealed:
A Sauk Village girl who suffocated her newborn daughter, then placed her in the trash, was sentenced Tuesday to 5 years of probation and mandatory counseling by a Cook County Juvenile Court judge.
She was arrested in October 2006 after she told detectives she secretly gave birth in the middle of the night in the bathroom of her house. She was 14 at the time. Authorities said that after she gave birth, her younger sister cut the baby’s umbilical cord, fed the baby formula and put her to bed.
That morning the teen went to school. When she came home, she suffocated the baby with a blanket and put her body in the trash, police said. The body was found later that night by a female relative.
The girl was found guilty of second-degree murder and concealing a homicide in October.
The girl, who is now 16 and is not being named because she is a juvenile, appeared in the Markham courthouse before Judge Michael W. Stuttley. She didn’t speak during the sentencing hearing, and kept her eyes lowered during much of the proceeding. Stuttley also sentenced the girl to complete 100 hours of community service at a day-care center.
Now, I can understand the fear, confusion and immaturity this young girl must have. Nonetheless, the utter lack of moral foundation led her to selfishly decide that “Ending my baby’s life is better than me getting in trouble.”
And see where the pro-choice world is headed by taking a look at the Netherlands, perhaps the most liberal (legal drugs, legal prostitution, legal homosexuality, legal abortion, legal euthaniasia, legal zoophilia) place on earth:
Now They Want to Euthanize Children
In the Netherlands, 31 percent of pediatricians have killed infants. A fifth of these killings were done without the “consent” of parents. Going Dutch has never been so horrible.
by Wesley J. Smith
FIRST, Dutch euthanasia advocates said that patient killing will be limited to the competent, terminally ill who ask for it.
Then, when doctors began euthanizing patients who clearly were not terminally ill, sweat not, they soothed: medicalized killing will be limited to competent people with incurable illnesses or disabilities.
Then, when doctors began killing patients who were depressed but not physically ill, not to worry, they told us: only competent depressed people whose desire to commit suicide is “rational” will have their deaths facilitated.
Then, when doctors began killing incompetent people, such as those with Alzheimer’s, it’s all under control, they crooned: non-voluntary killing will be limited to patients who would have asked for it if they were competent.
And now they want to euthanize children.
In the Netherlands, Groningen University Hospital has decided its doctors will euthanize children under the age of 12, if doctors believe their suffering is intolerable or if they have an incurable illness.
But what does that mean? In many cases, as occurs now with adults, it will become an excuse not to provide proper pain control for children who are dying of potentially agonizing maladies such as cancer, and doing away with them instead.
As for those deemed “incurable”–this term is merely a euphemism for killing babies and children who are seriously disabled.
Indeed, a disturbing 1997 study published in the British medical journal, the Lancet, revealed how deeply pediatric euthanasia has already metastasized into Dutch neo natal medical practice: According to the report, doctors were killing approximately 8 percent of all infants who died each year in the Netherlands.
That amounts to approximately 80-90 per year. Of these, one-third would have lived more than a month. At least 10-15 of these killings involved infants who did not require life-sustaining treatment to stay alive. The study found that a shocking 45 percent of neo-natologists and 31 percent of pediatricians who responded to questionnaires had killed infants.
Dutch doctors are able to engage in the kind of euthanasia activities that got some German doctors hanged after Nuremberg.
For those who object to this assertion by claiming that German doctors killed disabled babies during World War II without consent of parents, so too do many Dutch doctors: Approximately 21 percent of the infant euthanasia deaths occurred without request or consent of parents.
Moreover, since when did parents attain the moral right to have their children killed?
Blame the radically altered mindset that results when killing is redefined from a moral wrong into a beneficent and legal act.
If killing is right for, say the adult cancer patient, why shouldn’t it be just as right for the disabled quadriplegic, the suicidal mother whose children have been killed in an accident, or the infant born with profound mental retardation?
At that point, laws and regulations erected to protect the vulnerable against abuse come to be seen as obstructions that must be surmounted. From there, it is only a hop, skip, and a jump to deciding that killing is the preferable option.
And I would add, if killing is right for the unborn baby (as pro-choicers say), why shouldn’t it be just as right for the born infant?
Indeed, now that the ‘progressive’ world has decided that taking away the life of a non-consenting baby is the inalienable right of the mother, how long before this ‘right to take away life’ is extended to everyone else?
The doctors will forbid medical aid to be given to those whom they deem ‘unworthy’. (Did I say will? I mean, already do.)
The white racists will forcibly abort the black babies. (Did I say will? I mean, already are.)
Governments will round up and gas ‘social undesirables’ like vagabonds and the elderly. (Did I say will? I mean, aleady did in 1940s Nazi Germany and already do today in the Netherlands, see the news piece above.)
And a mother will snuff out their 5-year old child’s life because he is ‘inconvenient’ to her dating life. (Did I say will? Read the first half of this post again.)
And do you know what? One day, these ‘social progressives’ will one day be old and sick and OH-SO-INCONVENIENT to keep around… And then they will have the privilege of enjoying the exact same treatement they advocated all their lives.
It’s just too bad that the pro-abortion supporters did not themselves have the experience of being aborted.