I just read an article from the February 7 edition of the National Review entitled, “Infanticide and the Left” by Ramesh Ponnuru. The author made the following observation: “An individual infant who was born very prematurely is less developed (often substantially so) than a fetus at term, but it is the former who has legal protection. The distinction turns entirely on location: Inside the womb the developing human organism is a fetus, and outside it is an infant.”
In other words, laws that prohibit late term abortion do so supposedly because the unborn baby is much more developed in the third trimester than in the first trimester. The problem comes, however, when a baby is aborted, let’s say after 25 weeks—and survives. Once the baby is born his or her life is then protected by law. So the life, for example, of a 30 week old unborn baby could be terminated in the womb and many states would consider that legal, but terminating the life of a 25 week old prematurely born baby would be considered murder.
Clearly it is not the developmental status of the baby that is the real issue, but simply the location of the baby—inside the womb or outside the womb. This is about as logical as saying that if someone kills their spouse outside their home it is murder but if they kill their spouse inside their home is it OK! Recognizing the absurdity of this position, some Democrats are now basically arguing that location doesn’t matter, saying that it should be legal to kill babies (or allow them to die unattended) outside the womb as well!
Even if these new advocates of infanticide succeed, it would not solve their logical dilemmas. Take, for example, two pregnant neighbors. One goes into labor prematurely and delivers the baby at 30 weeks. Only then does she discover that her baby has some kind of deformity, but if the mother were to terminate the baby, it would be considered murder.
Her neighbor, on the other hand, discovers that her baby also has a deformity and decides to abort the baby at 30 weeks. The baby survives the abortion. If infanticide advocates have their way, she would be free to have the baby terminated. Two babies. Both born at 30 weeks. The first is protected by law as a human being. The second is apparently not considered human and allowed to be terminated. So whether the baby was considered to be human and has human rights would depend entirely on whether the child was wanted!
Clearly this contradiction could not stand for long so the next step would be to allow infanticide in all cases. And if our society is going to allow infanticide, how much time should the parents be given to make that decision? Hours? Days? Years? Or should that decision also be left between a mother and her doctor?
Perhaps we’re making a mountain out of a mole hill since this affects only a very tiny number of abortions—or so they say. According to the article, “one abortion-industry official admitted that he had “lied through [his] teeth on national television” about this. There may be as many as “12,000 abortions after week 20” every year—more than the number of people murdered with guns each year.
I agree that location shouldn’t matter. Generally speaking, deliberately killing an innocent human being should be considered murder. It is a scientific fact that unborn babies, or as the Left likes to call them, “products of conception” are human and they are certainly innocent. The infant’s location, or whether he or she is wanted, should not be allowed to take away their constitutionally guaranteed human “right to life.”