Pulse
Featured Image

Every once in a while I come across something from an abortion advocate that literally makes my stomach churn. No kidding.

Take what leading Canadian abortion advocate Joyce Arthur wrote this month in a piece arguing against bringing in an abortion law in the UK. At one point she says the debate shouldn’t be centered on “fetal viability,” but on the “health and needs” of women who “need abortion care.”

I must say that as a father of five young children, one who is just over a year old, I was absolutely disgusted by what Arthur wrote: 

Women don’t ask for an abortion because it’s their ‘right to choose,’ or because they don’t understand what’s inside of them. They request abortion because they can’t provide responsibly for a child (or another child) at this point in their lives.

My first reaction was: “Wow, here’s an abortion advocate who finally uses the words ‘abortion’ and ‘child’ in the same sentence, even going as far as admitting that abortion involves a woman who wants to be rid of her child.”

The next thought made me sick: “And someone could use this exact same logic to get rid of a born child who might be one, two, or three years old.”

Click “like” if you are PRO-LIFE!

The word “infanticide” suddenly flashed across my mind. I immediately saw that if a woman can kill her unborn children because she “can’t provide responsibly” for them, then why not be able to kill her born ones if she “can’t provide responsibly” for them? Abortion logic works flawlessly in both cases.

Look at that line above again and replace “abortion” with “infanticide.”

They request infanticide because they can’t provide responsibly for a child (or another child) at this point in their lives.

Arthur then goes on to say in her piece:

A woman’s abortion decision is about ensuring her future and that of her family, not about the current legal or moral status of her fetus.

Again, let’s replace “abortion” with “infanticide,” and “fetus” with “child”:

A woman’s infanticide decision is about ensuring her future and that of her family, not about the current legal or moral status of her child.

Are you getting sick yet?

Infanticide is not a new idea. It was used in Roman times to end the lives of unwanted children. It’s currently nothing taboo in the circles of the intellectually elite. Experts have already justified it in major medical journals. Bioethics professor Peter Singer has openly advocated for the right of doctors to kill disabled babies until 30 days after birth, saying that “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”

People growing up accepting abortion will one day accept infanticide because once they see killing as a way of solving a problem, there will be more and more problems where killing will be seen as the only possible solution.

Abortion culture is a sick and twisted thing. The only antidote is to recognize each human life for what it truly is: a beautiful, unrepeatable gift infused with a spark of divinity. 

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.