Abortion “would reduce infanticide”

By Steve K

Not so light-hearted today, but worth mentioning because this kind of thing shows the reasoning behind people’s attempts to justify things that are unjustifiable.  A warning: some descriptions are a bit graphic and the post as a whole may be upsetting.

Yahoo News posted an article today, “Killing of newborn babies on the rise in Pakistan”. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110117/lf_afp/pakistanchildreninfanticide  Unwanted babies are killed and end up anywhere it’s convenient to dispose of them. While this is the farthest thing from funny, idiotic logic somehow finds a way to rear it’s empty head and produce a chuckle (because chuckles, laughter, even mild hysteria are natural byproducts of idiocy).

The article states “Abortion is prohibited in Pakistan,……but advocates say that legalisation would reduce infanticide” You heard it right – abortion would reduce infanticide.  Killing babies right after birth is just unacceptable.  The solution……let’s kill them inside the womb!  (Wait, isn’t killing newborn babies just post-birth abortion?)

Can someone please explain, using logic & reason, how this would reduce infanticide? So it’s only “infanticide” once the child sees daylight? Does it really matter which side of the birth canal you kill the child?  Here’s an example of how convoluted this thinking is: Let’s say a baby is born premature. Mom then kills her. That’s murder, and everyone is shocked & outraged.  But if that same child remains in the womb – even for another month or two, and Mom has an abortion, then that’s her “right”, and mom can also be proud that she did her part to reduce infanticide…..way to go, Mom – two thumbs up!  This is the same twisted reasoning behind partial-birth abortion. You can insert a sharp instrument into (aka “stab”) the baby underneath the base of the skull to end it’s life, and this is a perfectly legal “procedure” as long as the child’s head is still inside the cervix, even if the child is out from the neck down.  But if the doctor waits until the head is also out, then the same act would be murder.  Yeah, that makes sense.

And before any of you pro-abortion individuals chime in about this being a woman’s right, answer this: How do you feel about the fact that 9 out of 10 of these children in Pakistan are girls? Where is the outrage from the left? Where are the protests from N.O.W.?  Isn’t it odd that these same people claim that we need to end capital punishment because a disproportionate number of minorities are executed; but will these same individuals demand an end to abortion for the disproportionate number of female’s killed?  I wouldn’t hold my breath.

So the pro-abortionists act like they’re upset that babies end up in the trash heap. What really bothers them isn’t dead babies, it’s seeing dead babies. Whether a child is born and strangled then disposed of, or that same child is destroyed before birth in a clinic and disposed of in a bio-hazard bin makes a huge difference to the pro-abortionists, because one way allows them to not have to see the results of their choice.

Let me be clear here – I’m not raining condemnation down on anyone who has made a mistake in the past, but we can all learn from it.  And if anyone wants to continue holding to a pro-abortion position, that’s fine; but let’s  do away with this nonsense that abortion will “reduce infanticide”.

Advertisements

6 Comments

Filed under SMH

6 responses to “Abortion “would reduce infanticide”

  1. There is a difference between killing a newborn vs. having an abortion at, say, 2 months. The 2-month-old fetus is not viable outside a woman’s womb. The fact that 9 out of 10 of these newborns are women is a sad reflection on how women are devalued.

    • @SillyLiberal -“Viability” is a weak arguement in favor of killings babies. Notice the language used here…”fetus”; while this is a clinical term used to describe a baby inside the womb, you use it here to try to distinguish them as something other than a person. “It’s not a baby, it’s just a fetus….nothing more than a lump of protoplasm; not worthy of any consideration”. It’s a sad reflection on how you’ve devalued human life.
      The issue of viability can equally apply outside the womb, even to adults; how about all the instances of people involved in accidents who required life-support until they recovered, and would have died without it?
      Life begins at conception. To say otherwise leaves you to have to pick a day during the pregnancy to say (for legal purposes) when a fetus is promoted to the status of personhood, a date that at best would be arbitrary. To further the discussion, let’s say it’s decided that life begins on the 160th day. (if you don’t like that day, then pick any day – it doesn’t matter for these purposes) That means that on 11:59pm the night before it’s not a human and has no rights, but 1 second later the fetus becomes human and is entiltled to the protection of the law? Is the child dead at 11:59, and then comes to life at the stroke of midnight? It’s ok to kill this child up to 11:59pm but if you wait 1 second more then it’s murder?
      Any day chosen would be artificial since there’s no way of knowing for certain if a particular baby is viable on any given day, and that day would be different from one baby to the next.
      Another thing wrong with the viability arguement is how you ignore the future viability of all babies. Just because a baby is not viable now doesn’t mean it won’t soon be. Basically, what you’re saying is “kill it now – don’t wait; don’t give the child a chance to be viable in the very near future”.
      Thank you for providing another example of irrational justification.

  2. I’ve stated my position, but what is with the name calling? Silly? I expected more from a “Christian” and someone obviously intelligent enough to defend his positions. Yet another checkmark on the “Conpassionate Conservative Hypocrisy” column. Congratulations.

  3. You’re breaking my heart. As it’s stated in “About back40”, part of what this blog is about: “Sacred cows might get skewered, sometimes in an irreverent manner. So let’s relax, lighten-up a bit, not take ourselves too seriously, and have some fun!”
    I understand you taking issue with the mild teasing, but what I don’t understand (but have come to expect from Libs) is why you didn’t answer a single one of my questions about when life begins or the viability of adults on life support, but instead you ignored that and focused exclusively on the completely unrelated instance of my hypocrisy, which makes no sense since you don’t seem to believe in God. Why are you as an atheist making a moral judgement about hypocrisy? In fact, why make moral judgements about anything at all? In the absence of a Moral God, how is this wrong? What absolute, universal, and unchanging standard of morality do you use to determine right from wrong, and how do you justify applying this standard to everyone?

  4. Despite you assumption, I do believe in God. I’m not even close to an atheist. That’s neither here nor there, though.

    When does life begin? Depends on who you ask. Some will say conception (as you stated). Others when blood first appears in the body. Jewish people believe it’s during childbirth. Others say when it take its first breath.

    The life support thing. Before the tragic event that caused the person to be on life support, they were fully developed and functioning. Unlike a *fetus.* If that fetus is able to live outside the body of the mother, it is independent of the mother. Fetus is the scientific term. Has nothing to do with value of life. Just like dilation and extraction is the scientific phrase for the made up “partial birth abortion.”

    Anyway, that is my stance on it. I won’t change your mind, and you won’t change mine. Thank GOD we have the right to choose in this country. We’re not going to go back to the days when women threw themselves down staircases to “accidentally” miscarry.

    Thanks for responding and for allowing me the opportunity to present my POV (however you feel about it). I shall bid you adieu and won’t follow the thread anymore. The teasing is fine. I just don’t feel up to it. Yes, I know, I’m breaking your heart. But you’ll get over it. 😉 Peace.

  5. If you believe in God, then how do you justify abortion during any stage of pregnancy?
    I know there are varied opinions of when life begins, but i didn’t ask for them, I asked you for your definition since you brought up viability. Maybe some Jewish people believe life begins at birth, but the Jews of the Bible believed differently. (Jerimiah 1:5, Luke 1:44)
    Viability before a tragedy is irrelevant; what matters is the potential for regaining that viability. If there’s no hope of recovery then why put a person on life support? How is surviving “independent of the mother” any different than an adult surviving independent of life support?
    The irony of your reasoning is that the baby’s potential to soon become viable is a near certainty in contrast to the uncertainty of a patient on life support. Mom is the child’s life-support.
    I already pointed out that “fetus” is a medical term, but you used it in such a way as to de-humanize the person.
    Partial-birth abortion is “made-up”? Are you expecting anyone to take you seriously? And just what, exactly, is being extracted, and from where? When part of a baby is extracted through a dilated cervix, that is called partial birth.
    The abortionist jams scissors into the baby’s skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child’s brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed. This is not “made up”. You can substitute the words with whatever clinical terms you think will ease your concsience or keep you in denial, but it doesn’t change the facts.
    I don’t know what god you believe in, but it’s clear you don’t know the One True God who has not left it up to us to “choose” to do such a painful and horrible thing to the most innocent and helpless among us. If you did that to a dog you’d be charged with felony animal cruelty, perhaps ending up in prison like Michael Vick. And thanking God for the right to do this to a child?
    Tell me more about the god you believe in, and whether you are in any way grateful to your god that you have the gift of life, or in your clinical terms, the gift of “surviving the partial-extraction-through-the-dilated-cervix abortion”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s