In the past, political conservatives would use slippery slope type claims to argue that legalizing abortion would eventually lead to infanticide. Is there much of a difference between killing a child in the womb versus killing a child that has already been born? If abortion is legal, then soon killing children post-birth could become legal, they argued.
Of course the left always scoffed at this argument. There is a clear distinction between a fully developed child post-birth and a partially developed fetus in the womb, they maintained.
Well, it seems like the American political and moral discourse has slipped all the way down the slide.
Now the left and feminist abortionists are demanding that women have the “right to choose” whether their babies are allowed to live or die after they are born.
The latest battle in the nation’s continuing war over abortion involves a federal bill called the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Senate Democrats this week blocked the bill from reaching a vote, and President Trump responded with an angry tweet.
Senate Democrats just voted against legislation to prevent the killing of newborn infant children. The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth….
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 26, 2019
Is Trump being hyperbolic in his tweet?
The bill would require doctors to use all means available to save the life of a child born alive after an attempted abortion. They must, it says, “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child” as they would for “any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”
Seems like common sense. If a baby is born and is breathing, has a heart beat, etc., shouldn’t doctors try to help the baby survive?
But the left claims that ultimately it is in the hands of the mother to decide whether the baby should live or die. It is horrifying how leftist media outlets are trying to justify this.
It hardly ever happens, according to Dr. Daniel Grossman, a professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco. He performs abortions and is a spokesman for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, where he leads a committee on health care for underserved women.
A healthy fetus becomes viable — potentially able to survive outside the womb — at about 24 weeks of pregnancy. Only about 1.3 percent of abortions in the United States in 2015 were performed in or after the 21st week of pregnancy, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Less than 1 percent of all abortions are done after 24 weeks, and many are performed because the fetus has a fatal condition or the pregnant woman’s life or health is at severe risk.
This is standard pro-abortion propaganda. They want to throw around this 1% number but ignore crucial details. First of all, 1% of the hundreds of thousands of reported abortions that happen annually (over 683,000 in 2015) means thousands of viable infants are murdered every year. The Prophet peace be upon him has informed us that the soul enters the body at 120 days after conception (or 40 days according to some scholarly interpretations of the hadith):
“Indeed the creation of one of you is brought together in the mother’s womb for forty days in the form of a drop, then he becomes a clot for a like period, then a lump for a like period, then there is sent an angel who blows the soul into him.”
So this means all these innocent souls, tens of thousands, are terminated in just the US.
Secondly, as the CDC admits, their data is partial. They are only able to gather partial data on all the legal abortions done in 47 states who voluntarily report data. Only Allah knows the number of illegal abortions that take place annually. And as for legal abortions, all the data is not available. It would not be a stretch to say that over 1 million abortions are taking place every year in just one Western country. Throughout the world, the number must be staggering.
Anyway, this is the standard pro-abortion strategy: Make it seem like abortions are very minimal. It’s not really a big issue, they claim. It’s extremely rare, etc. Yet, the actual numbers don’t show this.
But more importantly, even if it is rare, how does that change the need for legislation? Nuclear war is statistically very rare, for example. That doesn’t mean international law shouldn’t heavily regulate the issue. But this is how the value of a life is minimized. If only a few thousand babies are killed every year, well, I guess that’s not such a big deal according to the NYTimes. They’re just babies, after all.
Dr. Grossman said there were painful situations in which the fetus might be at the edge of viability and labor must be induced to save the mother’s life. For instance, a condition called pre-eclampsia, involving high blood pressure and other problems, can kill both mother and fetus, and in most cases the only treatment is to deliver the baby. If it seems unlikely that the baby will survive, the family may choose to provide just comfort care — wrapping and cuddling the baby — and allow the child to die naturally without extreme attempts at resuscitation.
Did you notice this subtle shift? Dr Grossman was earlier discussing infants that survive attempted abortions. Now he is talking about a completely different scenario: inducing labor to save a mother’s life. These are two separate things. But it is important for the NYTimes to conflate them because it makes the reader think that the issue of contention is the life and death of the mother rather than the real issue which is a pregnant woman voluntarily deciding to terminate her pregnancy in the third trimester because “my body, my choice.”
The bill would force doctors to resuscitate such an infant, even if the parents did not want those measures, said Dr. Jennifer Conti, an obstetrician gynecologist who is a fellow of Physicians for Reproductive Health, an advocacy group. Doctors who violated the law would be subject to criminal penalties, as would anyone who saw the violation and failed to report it, she said.
“Resuscitate” is deliberate language used here. It implies that the baby has already stopped breathing or has no heart beat and now doctors have to decide to perform extra-ordinary measures to bring the baby back to life.
Again, this is not what is contention with this bill. The bill is about a baby that has survived an abortion attempt, meaning the baby is alive, not dead and in need of resuscitation. Should this baby be cared for like any pre-mature baby that is born? Or should the mother have the right to forego that care and let the baby die of neglect?
Any person with an ounce of moral sense knows the answer to this. But the left is forced to use creative language games to dress up what is infanticide.
The infamous words of the Virginia democrat seemingly permitting infanticide have yet to be retracted by him or seriously challenged by leftist leaders:
“The infant would be delivered,” Northam said, explaining a hypothetical case in which a woman in labor wanted an abortion. “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.”
This is the logical end of “My body, my choice,” which is why leftists cannot condemn it.
Why Muslims Should Care
I have discussed this in depth here.