The recent trend of women and young girls tossing their dead newborns wrapped in garbage bags into the trash is, disturbingly, not without some parallel thinking in the media and, some say, among so-called prestigious sources.
According to Melissa Harris-Perry’s opinion, voiced cheerfully on MSNBC on July 21, 2013 on when life begins…the answer depends an awful lot on the feeling of the parent – a powerful feeling but not science.
So how is it not science? Does she mean that a pregnant woman is not pregnant because she has not decided life has begun in her uterus? Is there also a qualifier to that statement, such as, what if the woman decides that after the baby is born, life still has not begun?
And what does she mean by feeling? That is an awfully broad concept; it can cover a lot of ground. For example, when the baby is born and the parents do not like its nose or hair color, can they decide to have it murdered? Oh pardon, aborted. Or maybe they simply decide they cannot afford it after all. Like the Lexus they were hoping to buy.
It could seem to some that the baby, a living, breathing person, existing outside the womb, same as we are, can be reduced to a thing, like a stove or a dress that is the wrong size – because of a feeling.
Another apparent make it OK statement was presented on the Harris-Perry segment by Dr. Willie Parker who claims that, according to scientific study, a fetus is not able to feel pain until the 29th week.
Well, not according to a graphic Youtube video called, The Silent Scream, which shows a fetus desperately trying to escape from an abortionist knife at 12 weeks. The fetus is clearly aware he is in danger. The point is whether it is physical or emotional pain, they are equally tragic.
This is not to present any particular anti-abortion viewpoint but simply to say that a child, born or not, is alive and not only that, according to the website pregnancy.familyeducation.com, a fetus is fully formed at 12 weeks in the womb. How much more will that baby feel being done away with at birth?
There was an article written in February 2012 in the Journal of Medical Ethics entitled After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live? by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. A reviewer of this article, Tom Blumer, quotes from it:
… we need to assess facts in order to decide whether the same arguments that apply to killing a human fetus can also be consistently applied to killing a newborn human. Their answer is “Yes, they should,” which means, based on state of current immoral law, that they advocate infanticide
Here is another quote from that article by William Saletan, political, science and technology writer:
[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.
According to the Washington Post, Giubilini and Minerva later claimed they never intended to suggest making after–birth abortion legal. However, the very fact that the idea is being written about and discussed as possibly an ethical or acceptable thing to do is startling, even if it was meant to be heard by just their peers.
As far as we know, killing in general – outside of self-defense – is still illegal. Considering that, is there any difference between two killings other than one is a defenseless newborn – an abortion ending in a garbage bag – and the other is not?
An even more erroneous term being thrown around is fourth term abortion. Pregnancy has three trimesters. So what could this fourth term be except birth, carefully masked as pregnancy with intent to make it legal? In fact, a trimester is three months, so could this possibly mean the baby can be aborted up to three months old?
President Obama’s top science advisor, Dr.John R.Holden co-authored a book with Paul Ehrlich called Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions in 1973. In a review of the book, Steven W. Mosher says:
But their big push was for population control. The publication of the book predated the Roe v. Wade decision, and the authors strongly argued for legalizing abortion as a population control measure. They suggest that abortion cannot really be considered the taking of a human life, on the grounds that neither the fetus, nor the newborn, nor the toddler, is truly human anyway:
The reviewer further says these authors justify this partially by saying people want too much material wealth, so if everyone was rich, the planet couldn’t sustain them. In fact, they should be poor so we can share the wealth. Sound familiar?
At a recent committee hearing, a Planned Parenthood official shocked some when she answered a question proposed to her by the panel assembled. They asked her what Planned Parenthood’s official stance is in the situation where an abortion fails and the baby is born alive. The official said she did not know what the doctor would do or what would happen in that situation, but the decision about what to do should be left to the doctor and the patient. She also said she did not know how often that situation happens and that she did not have information about what is supposed to happen in that instance. Some perceive her answer to mean that in other words, the baby is not the patient; he or she has no rights.
Some may call these after-birth abortions progress and part of a woman’s right to choose but really it is a backward descent into a piece of barbarism where life has little value and the future is threatened by trashed morals.
Garbage bag abortions are not what should fill hospital or neighborhood trash cans.
An Editorial By: Lucille Femine