Further Cheapening Respect for Life

In a society that considers murdering innocent children even outside the womb as "abortion", it's not hard to imagine that some psychopathic killers will also develop a wanton disregard for the preciousness of life.

As many as 1 in 30 babies being aborted actually survives outside the womb and is left to die an agonizing death (in some cases as agonizing as the abortion procedure itself may have been).

Researchers found that one in 30 of babies aborted by this induced labor abortion were delivered alive, living an average of 80 minutes. A few lived several hours. This statistic increased to one in 10 when babies were aborted at the gestational age of 23 weeks, the current medically drawn line of viability.

In at least one case, a baby was sealed in a large zip-lock bag so that it would suffocate. In many others, they are just left to languish until they expire. Regardless of how you feel about a woman's right to choose, how can you support something as egregious as allowing a human being to die such a heinous death?

Not much different than, shall we say, taking a gun into a university campus building and killing 32 people and then yourself. Is it?

Interestingly and importantly in light of this comparison, the Supreme Court made a 5-4 decision upholding the Congressional ban on partial-birth abortions on the same day as the Virginia Tech massacre. What the majority had to say in the case is helpful in making less likely both types of murders:

The government undoubtedly [quoting the ban] "has an interest in protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession." � The Act's ban on abortions involving partial delivery of a living fetus furthers the Government's objectives. Congress determined that such abortions are similar to the killing of a newborn infant. This Court has confirmed the validity of drawing boundaries to prevent practices that extinguish life and are close to actions that are condemned.

[T]he Act defines the line between potentially criminal conduct on the one hand and lawful abortion on the other. Doctors performing D&E will know that if they do not deliver a living fetus to an anatomical landmark they will not face criminal liability.

The Supreme Court's decision makes it more likely that, not only will we not be likely to condone acts such as the Virginia Tech massacre in the future, but that we will also be less likely to claim, as we did this time around, that the murderer was a victim.


  1. Frank, you're citing a WorldNetDaily report, you know that, right? Like, "Flight 93 Was Shot Down By The Air Force" and "Soy Causes Homos". You call that journalism?

  2. Contrary to your assertion that abortion raises the crime rate, one research study found that the lowering of the crime rate in the 1990s could be tied to Roe v. Wade. The unwanted babies who didn't get born in the 70s didn't have a chance to become criminals in the 90s when they would have been at the age when criminals engage in most of their behavior.

  3. Plan,

    Why don't you add some substance to the discussion, rather than making an ad hominem attack against WND?


    The study you refer to (or a similar one) was included in the book Freakonomics. I found it very logical. What I'm referring to, though, is that a society that cheapens life through mass abortions and especially through the kinds of "abortions" described in my article, should expect to see more individuals in that society develop very few qualms about going on murder sprees.

  4. OK, how's this?

    The WND article begins with this sentence:

    "The British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published a startling report in its March 2007 issue."

    Here that issue is online:


    No such study listed.

    Did the reporter just make stuff up? Or is this research report just not available online?

    I hope this does not sound ad hominem, but to most of western civilization, WND is perceived as less than mainstream journalism. Articles like the "Rumsfeld says Flight 93 Was Shot Down" one (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42112) just reinforce that perception. Much the same as National Enquirer, WND just can't be trusted. Sorry Frank but that's just the way it is.

  5. You're correct that it was not in the March issue of BJOG. I'll let the WND author know that she made a mistake. It was actually in the May 2007 issue.

  6. Frank, thanks for pointing me to the correct issue. I sure wish I could read the entire report, though...too bad it's hidden behind a pay-per-view firewall. The available abstract sure doesn't sound nearly as onerous as the WND article does:

    "Terminations of pregnancy for fetal anomaly (TOPFAs) were analysed over a 10-year period from a population-based congenital anomaly register covering 646 342 births. A total of 3189 cases of TOPFA were identified, prevalence of 49.3 per 10 000 registerable births. The rate of TOPFA at all gestations and at less than 16 weeks increased significantly. There were 102 cases of liveborn TOPFAs (3.2%). The proportion of liveborn TOPFAs after 22 weeks of gestation decreased significantly but below 22 weeks remains unchanged. TOPFA is increasing in frequency, occurring earlier in pregnancy. Live birth is a possible important outcome."

    So the number of abortions due to "fetal anomalies" is increasing. Even though I'm not a doctor, I know that some (albeit not all) fetal anomalies can be life-threatening. I cannot begin to imagine the shock, horror and anguish a pregnant woman must experience when confronted with this information.

    I wholeheartedly agree that whatever the procedure used in the UK study that resulted in 3.2% of liveborn TOPFA's, it should be changed or eliminated. That's simply unconscionable.

    Which is not to say that I think all abortions should be banned. If abortions are outlawed, desperate women will just go back to coat-hangers in dirty alleys, and that won't reduce the number of painful, liveborn aborted fetuses.

  7. I agree with your summation, that abortion should not be banned outright. You might get a better idea of how I feel about it by reading "I Am Pro-Contemplation".


Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog