“Infanticide: The killing of an infant.” That’s made plain and simple by Merriam Webster. So is Virginia Governor Ralph Northam in this video interview describing abortion or infanticide?
Pro-Choice pundits for decades have defined for the World exactly when life begins: “Not until a fetus is actually born does it become a human.”
In the interview seen and heard above, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s description of the bill before the Virginia legislature made one thing very clear: “these third-trimester procedures will be done with the consent of the mother and with the consent of more than one physician, and it’s done in cases where they may be a severe deformity and may be a fetus that’s non-viable. So in this specific example, if a mother is in labor I can tell you exactly what would happen: the infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physician and the mother.”
The Governor clearly made a difference between the “unborn” — a fetus — and the “born” — an infant. Infants are babies — AND THEY’RE ALIVE!
So what is the “discussion between the mother and the physician” about? It could only mean one thing: whether or not to kill that infant. Yes, it might be deformed. Yes, it might have “been” non-viable before its birth. But in the scenario painted by Governor Northam, “it would be kept comfortable” for only one reason: IT WAS ALIVE.
The governor was not going to skate by unscathed with the uproar that followed the above radio interview. So he doubled down on his position:
Irony of Ironies
You may be too young to remember back in the early ’70s when the Roe v. Wade case was all over the news every day. The loudest cries during that era came from the Pro-Choice crowd screaming at Right-to-Lifers demanding abortion rights totally on behalf of mothers. (Interesting isn’t it that they’re not mothers if they abort their children! Who are they the mothers of?) The Right-to-Life supporters felt that abortion way back then was the taking of life — killing a baby. If I heard it once I heard it a thousand times: “It’s not a baby until it is born. So it’s not alive until it is born.”
Since that time, the argument has taken us much farther down that path. Abortion supporters still make that claim, but have edited it to include that abortion is a Women’s Right: Women’s Reproductive Right to be exact — that men have no right to even given an opinion since no man knows personally what it means to be pregnant. While that may be true, there IS a man somewhere in that process! It still takes a man to make a baby, right? (Does the guy have any rights in this conversation? That starts a whole different discussion)
It is ironic what 45 years have done to this conversation and where we find ourselves today. 45 years after the United States Supreme Court ruled that abortion is legal in all 50 states, that discussion has now become a debate of the legalization of killing a baby after its birth.
What is the current irony? “If” the Virginia bill in its present form gets passed by the state legislature and Governor Northam signs it into law, Virginia will be enacting what by the actual 1973 definition of and justification for abortion given by Pro-Choice advocates will mean Virginia has legalized infanticide.
Think about that for a moment: “Infanticide: The killing of an infant.”
By the explanation of Governor Northam in his own words, that “fetus” becomes an “infant” when it is born. The “discussion” the governor mentions can only be about whether the mother and doctor agree or disagree about allowing that infant to live. “If” the conclusion is to NOT allow the infant to live FOR ANY REASON, killing it is committing infanticide according to conventional wisdom.
What is the REAL Late-Term Abortion Discussion About?
Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) gives his synopsis to Dana Perino of Fox News of what the Virginia late-term abortion bill is really about:
Want another irony in this entire Virginia issue? Republicans narrowly control the Virginia House of Delegates, so the bill is unlikely to pass anytime soon. A subcommittee voted to table the bill in a 5-3 vote Monday. So unless and until it would be brought back up at the committee level and then voted to the floor of the Virginia House, it will not move forward. But in tandem with New York’s new Reproductive Rights Act signed into law, this Virginia proposal has put abortion front and center: not just abortion, because the Supreme Court in 1973 plainly determined its legality in all 50 states, but taking the life of an infant AFTER birth is now front and center.
Do you know what has really been going on during the 45 years since Roe v. Wade? Abortion has not really been about women’s reproductive rights or a woman’s body. Abortion has been about simply doing away with an unwanted and/or undesired individual that if allowed to exist create a life full of new and unwanted responsibility by someone or some group of people. Abortion has been the easiest way to avoid dealing with the day-to-day responsibilities of raising a son or daughter.
Don’t scream at your computer. I know there are extreme circumstances in which because of rape or incest the question of abortion or not must be considered. But according to Worldometers, as of the writing of this story, 3.6 million abortions have been conducted worldwide already in 2019. How many of those were for rape or incest? I doubt very many. Most abortions are clearly for other reasons.
The scary thought to me is this: it is looking more and more like science will soon — or may have already — discover that life begins earlier than Pro-Choice advocates have believed it does and has based abortion legality upon. Certainly, it will be sad if that happens to realize that millions of children will have been destroyed by the abortionists’ hand.
But think of the psychological horrors that will invade the minds of tens of millions of women worldwide who will be slapped with the reality that they have been party to the legalized and systemic slaughter of children. I cannot imagine how grief will grip those hearts. My heart breaks to think of the agony those people will bear.
Unless and until science discovers and releases such proof to the World, I suggest that women everywhere — especially in the United States — pause for a moment and re-examine the process of abortion. Pushing the envelope so far has resulted in people actually finding ways to be comfortable taking the lives of infants after their birth.
Infanticide’s definition is a simple one. And it’s not religious or political. Infanticide is “the killing of an infant.” That’s not according to Dan. That’s according to Merriam Webster.
I suggest Americans pause for a while and re-think late-term abortion and abortion as a whole. We all know women who have had abortions. I cannot imagine the horror, grief, and guilt that will attack each in the event of life at conception ever being declared a scientific fact.
You know what: we can stop abortion right now: TODAY!
Would that be so bad?