Abortion Debates Are Moving Towards Killing Born-Alive Babies

0
Share

h/t Rosalie Hansen

Two days ago, College Fix reported that pro-life activists say they are encountering more and more college students who believe in post-birth abortion. One even suggested that killing a child 4 or 5 years of age might be okay because the children are “not aware”.

While the article only deals with anecdotal and hearsay evidence, since abortion has become as normal as having a tooth extracted, late term abortion is being presented as a woman’s right and a woman’s choice, even if the baby is a moment away from birth. A natural progression for the extremists is a post-birth or 4th trimester abortion.

Even using the word “abortion” to refer to killing a born-alive baby is absurd and extreme, but it is the pro-lifers who are called extremists.

In July 2013 several students at George Mason University passed around a petition demanding 4th trimester abortions – the 4th trimester referring to after the baby is born.

A petition like that would have engendered ridicule ten years ago.

According to the Abortion Survivors Network there are an estimated 44,000 abortion survivors living in the country today. They were the lucky ones. So many more are not.

Recently two bioethicists, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, published a paper in the peer-reviewed the Journal of Medical Ethics, entitled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?”

They claim that killing born-alive babies is no different than abortion.

The article says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

From the Abstract:

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

Professor Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article’s authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

John Holdren, who Barack Obama appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology — informally known as the United States’ Science Czar says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization are needed to save the planet. Read more of his horrific thoughts here taken from his own book….Zombie.

Cass Sunstein wrote the paper “Lives, Life-Years, and Willingness to Pay” in the long-forgotten days of July 2003, when he was a mere 48-years-old.

In his 2003 paper, Sunstein criticized the government for protecting human life as though all lives were equal. Specifically, Sunstein said the government’s method for determining who received medical treatment should be changed; he suggested replacing the “value of a statistical life” (VSL) – which viewed all lives as equal – young people to receive medical care, if necessary while allowing older people to die, because they will live longer after the procedure is completed, reported Western Journalism.

And who could forget, Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama’s health advisor. Betsy McCaughey explains his “Complete Lives System”  here, in the WSJ.

No list is complete without Kathleen Sebelieus, our modern day Queen of Death, who believes in abortion up until the moment of birth without limitation. Back in March of 2013, she said that the reduction in births will compensate for the cost of the contraception mandate, according to CNS News.

And now Obamacare allows child sterilization without Parental Consent, so says the Catholic,org

Testifying against a Florida bill that would require abortionists to provide emergency medical care to an infant who survives an abortion, Planned Parenthood lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow was asked point blank: “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

She replied: “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”

When President Obama served in the state senate, he would not vote for the “born alive bill” because he was concerned that it would infringe on abortion rights.

In this video via Jill Stanek, President Obama refers to a born-alive baby as a fetus:

Born alive refers to babies who live after an abortion. The bill would have declared them human beings with the rights of human beings.

This bill stemmed from a case in which an aborted baby was born alive and brought to a linen closet to die. A nurse intervened and took care of the baby until he died. She brought the case to the attention of authorities and this bill grew out of the event.

Obama believes in preserving abortion rights even at the expense of a born alive baby, whom he refers to as a fetus in an effort to dehumanize the baby.

President Obama, for four years, said that it was the wording of the bill which was problematic since it put abortion at risk. He said he would have voted for it if the wording was the same as the federal bill. However, he wouldn’t vote for a bill identical to the federal bill, something he admitted in 2008.

The nonpartison group FactCheck.org has since corroborated that Obama voted against identical legislation as passed overwhelmingly on the federal level and then misrepresented his vote.

Governor Cuomo has tried to get an “up-to-the-moment-of-birth abortion” bill through the legislature. The bill allowed unlimited abortions and it elevated abortion to a fundamental right and would have New York on record saying the state can’t discriminate on abortion in benefits or services or anything else it provides.

Four senators up for re-election Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Claire McCaskill (MO), Mark Begich (AK), and Al Franken (MN) along with 30 other Democrats want to remove most restrictions on abortions with a federal law that stomps all over states rights.

What does it matter as long as it isn’t done to a cat or a Dusky Gopher Frog. Perish the thought.

Senate bill S.1696 is a scheme to erase every piece of state and local legislation that places any type of limitation on abortion or seeks to apply safety standards on abortion clinics and providers. It will also remove regulations on abortion-inducing drugs, ultrasound requirements, and limits on the use of public funds and facilities for abortions.

It’s an end-run around state laws.

Unscrupulous abortionists will be allowed to operate without any oversight. That’s pretty much the case now in many states. If it weren’t the case, Kermit Gosnell would not have operated for decades in an unclean, unsafe clinic where he murdered born alive children and a mother.

The bill allows the medical professional to make all decisions without restrictions.

This bill supposedly protects women’s health while doing the opposite. What it does do is allow unfettered abortions.

Read the text of the bill here and decide for yourself.

We don’t have formal statistics on how many college students believe in killing born-alive babies but we do know that it is now acceptable to discuss it.  We are dealing with a narcissistic society that thinks anything goes – even the murder of innocent babies who can’t defend themselves.

Share