Infaticide and Abortion

Annie

Diamond Member
Nov 22, 2003
50,848
4,827
1,790
Is there a difference?







http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-1_10_04_MR.html



January 10, 2004
The Lessons of Our Laws
ByMark Rienzi

Normally, there is nothing newsworthy about putting your trash in a bag and tossing it by the side of the house. That's where we throw things we don't want so they can be taken away, crushed, and destroyed with everyone else's waste and garbage. It is the kind of thing we do every day without a second thought.

So why was much of New Jersey reading about someone's trash over breakfast last Sunday morning? Because a 40-year-old Trenton woman reportedly took her newborn baby girl, put her in a plastic bag, and tossed her by the side of the house. Had the baby stayed there, she likely would have died and been disposed of with the rest of the trash.

Thankfully, some anonymous but heroic Trenton citizens did not let that happen. Instead, they informed police and emergency personnel who rescued the baby and rushed her to the hospital, where she is now in good condition.

The woman who gave birth to the baby ("mother" seems too generous a term) now faces between 15 and 30 years in prison if convicted on charges of attempted homicide and endangering the welfare of a child.

Sadly, the Trenton woman's actions are more common than you might think. Just hours earlier a different New Jersey woman, this one a 42-year-old from Mt. Ephraim, reportedly tried to drown her newborn daughter in the toilet just after giving birth.

That baby is in critical condition, but likely to survive as well. She is alive thanks to the woman's boyfriend, who barged into the bathroom and called police.The woman now faces attempted murder charges.

How could they do it? How do 40-year-olds - not misguided teens but full grown adults - take their babies and throw them away to die? Where do people learn these kinds of values? What allows someone to come to the conclusion that it is acceptable to throw away a defenseless human being or to kill a newborn baby just because you don't want it?

Unfortunately, our laws send very mixed messages about the value of unwanted children. There are two ways these women could have legally rid themselves of their unwanted babies. First, they could have taken advantage of New Jersey's Safe Haven Infant Protection Act (SHIP), which allows mothers the option of leaving their babies in safe hands at a hospital or police station. SHIP says that our society values and protects even the most defenseless little human beings, even when their parents don't want them.

But there's a second legal way these women could have been rid of the baby girls they tried to kill - they could have started the killing fifteen minutes sooner than they did. More precisely, if their doctors had killed and disposed of the babies just before birth, rather than just after, it would be called a "reproductive choice" rather than a crime.

The right to kill your unwanted baby is protected in our Constitution, and it is permitted in New Jersey right up through the moment of birth. Had the sequence of events we all cringed at last Sunday morning started just minutes earlier in an abortion clinic, our laws would have protected it instead of punishing it.

Political speeches and patriotic-sounding commercials tell us that abortion is one of our most precious rights, one we need to make sure we protect for our daughters to exercise. If a new life is a problem and you get to it soon enough, our society allows for that life to be killed and disposed of discreetly and legally, so that you can get on with your own.

Given that these women could have legally killed and discarded their babies at any time during the preceding nine months, is it so surprising that they felt they could discreetly kill their babies a few moments after birth?

In the thirty years since Roe v. Wade, the number of infant homicides has skyrocketed. According to a study released last year by the Centers for Disease Control, babies are at the greatest risk for homicide during the first week of life and are now ten times more likely to be murdered on the day they are born than at any other time in their entire lives.

In fact, babies are now killed on the first day of their lives almost daily in this country. The rate of infant homicide is now twice what it was before we began telling women they were free to kill their unwanted babies before birth.

In these most recent New Jersey cases, of course, we can all breathe a sigh of relief that the babies were not murdered. Instead, there is one healthy baby girl in good condition in a Trenton hospital, and another one likely to survive in Camden. Both now have a chance to experience the joys of life because caring citizens decided not to let an unwanted baby die.

But we should not let this story's happy ending distract us from its tragic roots: Someone thought if she didn't want her baby, it was okay to throw it away. Someone thought she had the right to end the life of a baby girl because she was not wanted. Where do people get such crazy ideas?
 
VEry interesting article. It would be interesting to see the raw numbers of infant homicide (excluding abortion, the sacred sacrifice of the Left) before and after Roe v. Wade.

BTW, Kathianne, great source - I love realclearpolitics.com! (Jim, I hope that doesn't count as plugging another site - it's a news/opinion site!)
 
Thanks Jeff, one that I check nearly every day.
 
Is there a difference?

Absolutely. The issue of when life starts aside, I think it's a little silly to compare a medical operation with throwing a baby in a trash bag and leaving it to die. Look at it this way: if a dog gets old and sick, you put him to sleep, right? Would it be the same thing to get it euthanized as to tie up all its legs and mouth and throw it in a ditch?
 
true, but a baby is not a dying dog. While for the dog it's only a matter of when and how painful will it be, the baby could grow up and be a functional human being and live for seventy years.

imo, I think abortion is bad because it's one less requirement that people live responsibly. I also think it's detrimental to limit children only to those who 'want' them.

practically, there are situations where abortions are necessary and doctors need to be able to make split-second decisions on wether to abort if a pregnancy goes wrong, or if a woman has been raped and does not want the child. I think the government should lay down more stringent laws, but they should be very clear about what can be done.
 
Some people have mentioned how most doctors won't perform one past a certain point. That's how it should be. There probably is some data about premature babies and what the survival rate is when they are born at a certain point. It is at this point that I think abortions should not be allowed. Why? Because I think it's stupid for the distinction to be whether the baby is in the womb or not. I mean, what really is the difference to a baby in the womb and one in the neonatal intensive care unit (the place where premature infants go)? Why is it murder to kill one but not the other? I really don't see a valid reason.
 
I think all anti-abortion folks should go adopt an unwanted child before they get on a soapbox. Then, they should support social programs to assist poor, single mothers who have babies. Then they should support all legislation that strengthens public education.

It goes far beyond just thinking abortion is wrong. Some people can not afford to support a child and they made a mistake and conceived one. Some teenage girls who have dreams of going to college and making a life for themselves find themselves accidentally pregnant.

I just think the whole anti-abortion stance needs to include a full plan to find homes, love, and support for these unwanted children. Do any of you anti-abortion folks have adopted children? If you do, I salute you, if you don't, you need to put your money where your mouth is. Just my opinion.


-Bam
 
While in the meantime you find nothing wrong with murdering innocent children. Spoken like a true liberal !
 
"<i>- they could have started the killing fifteen minutes sooner than they did. More precisely, if their doctors had killed and disposed of the babies just before birth, rather than just after, it would be called a "reproductive choice" rather than a crime. </i>" - Kathianne

Firstly, no physician will perform an abortion in the third trimester unless the fetus is profoundly deformed or the mother's life is jeopardized by carrying the fetus to term. To state that an abortion would normally be performed "15 minutes" prior to birth is a canard.

As to the moral failings of the women you (Kathianne) mentioned, tI am not familiar with the particulars of the cases, but their actions cannot be condoned. Nor am I familiar with the laws in other states, so I don't know if there are barriers to safe,legal abortions in the states of residence of these women. And as for the SHIP programs, they need to be heavily promoted to those who are most at risk, the poor, the undereducated in both the inner cities and rural areas.

Some genuine "compassionate conservatism" is needed in this country rather than the "shoot the wounded" approach of the current White House resident if we are to prevent further such occurences.
 
Qoute by Bamthin:
______________________
It goes far beyond just thinking abortion is wrong. Some people can not afford to support a child and they made a mistake and conceived one. Some teenage girls who have dreams of going to college and making a life for themselves find themselves accidentally pregnant.
________________________

It's very simple. If you can't handle the responsibility of having the child, don't have sex. Having a dream to be successful doesn't necessitate that someone should pick up after you.

I know that's old hat, and your probably grinding your teeth over eric's comment :blowup: bam, so think of it this way. If someone runs a red light and turns the other driver into a paraplegic, they have a responsibility to take care of that person, right?
If you drive wrecklessly against the rules that society sets for you to have a good life without hurting others, you suffer the consequences. Hopefully you don't become a repeat offender.

As far as adoption, as far as I know there are such services which encourage that as opposed to abortion. They have offices in the downtown of my area. They advertise regularly on television and radio, and they're seeking potential adoptees, not adopting parents.
 
Some people can not afford to support a child and they made a mistake and conceived one.

You mean like when Ken Lay made a mistake and people lost their entire futures. Well in this case children lose their whole lives !!!!

Look we all make mistakes, but when it comes to matters of other peoples lives we must exercise extra caution in our decision makeing process. Bamthin, your unconditional acceptance of these mistakes is nothing more than a free ticket for people to make them. There are consequences for our actions, and asking for other people to pay for them is just plain irresponsible !!

The one thing I will agree with you on, is that we need to fix our broken adoption system.
 
I actually am opposed to abortions after the first trimester.

I fully support a women's right to choose up to that point though.


-Bam
 
Originally posted by eric
While in the meantime you find nothing wrong with murdering innocent children. Spoken like a true liberal !


Where have I supported murdering children?


-Bam
 
I think all anti-abortion folks should go adopt an unwanted child before they get on a soapbox

From this statement. We should all get on a soapbox about this issue regardless of education and social programs. Also let me say that I am not makeing this a religious issue, and that I am not opposed to abortion up until the second trimester.
 
The reason adoption agencies and orphanages are so packed with these kids and older kids in general is because the couples who can afford the massive cost of adoption generally want healthy, white newborns. Latino, Black and biracial babies, as well as older children of all races have a very difficult time finding homes.

acludem
 
Originally posted by bamthin
I think all anti-abortion folks should go adopt an unwanted child before they get on a soapbox. Then, they should support social programs to assist poor, single mothers who have babies. Then they should support all legislation that strengthens public education.

It goes far beyond just thinking abortion is wrong. Some people can not afford to support a child and they made a mistake and conceived one. Some teenage girls who have dreams of going to college and making a life for themselves find themselves accidentally pregnant.

I just think the whole anti-abortion stance needs to include a full plan to find homes, love, and support for these unwanted children. Do any of you anti-abortion folks have adopted children? If you do, I salute you, if you don't, you need to put your money where your mouth is. Just my opinion.


-Bam
That's the most ridiculous rationalization I have every heard for this supposed right to privacy. Because some ignorant idiots can't keep their pants on, I'm supposed to take the money out of my son's future and support their mistakes? No offense to those who've had an abortion, but to suggest that I cannot have a say in whether it's legal or how and when it's implemented because I neither want someone else's child nor wish to pay for others' mistakes is just plain wrong.

Because the government takes money out of my pocket and gives it to others I have all the more reason to dictate their actions. You want me to be silent on the matter? Get your damn hands out of my pocket and stop stealing the money from my son so that other people can live without any morals or repercussions to their actions.
 
How about if I don't want MY money going to fund what I consider an immoral war in Iraq? Should we allow every American who pays taxes to dictate what their particular tax money goes to? Conservatives whine about money for abortion, and then try to use tax dollars to subsidize religion. The standard "I don't like it, therefore taxes shouldn't fund it" is ludicrous. Just think that your few grand in taxes went to feed soldiers in Iraq, they can use mine to fund abortions for poor women.
 

Forum List

Back
Top