Abortion One Day, Infanticide the Next

Mother Teresa once rightly said, “In a nation where a mother can kill her own child, what is left but for you and for I to kill one another?”  She also said, “Any country that accepts abortion, is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what it wants.”

As American family activist Maggie Gallagher once remarked, “The ethic of the child-batterer is the abortion ethic. Child abusers, like abortion activists, believe in adults’ right to be in control of their lives. Child abusers, like abortionists, believe that only children who gratify parental desires have a right to exist. It is hard to believe that the cultural message contained in abortion, the insistent eulogies to control, and the references to parenting as a right and a pleasure have not contributed to the explosion in child abuse and neglect”.

When we as a society fully condone and excuse the killing of children in the womb, then we have opened the door wide open to abuse, if not kill, children outside of the womb. Indeed, we have world-renowned “ethicists” like Peter Singer arguing in learned journals that infanticide is fully acceptable. I discuss him elsewhere: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2008/06/23/two-views-of-humanity/

Thus a culture which has given us abortion on demand is now well and truly in the process of giving us infanticide on demand. The ethics and logic of the one are basically the same as the other. And more and more, tragically, we are seeing the infanticide cult becoming mainstream.

Consider this horrendous headline: “Shock: No jail time for woman who strangled newborn because Canada accepts abortion, says judge”. Here is how the story unfolds: “An Alberta judge has let a woman who strangled her newborn son walk free by arguing that Canada’s absence of a law on abortion signals that Canadians ‘sympathize’ with the mother….

“Katrina Effert of Wetaskiwin, Alberta gave birth secretly in her parents’ downstairs bathroom on April 13, 2005, and then later strangled the newborn and threw his body over a fence.  She was 19 at the time. She has been found guilty of second-degree murder by two juries, but both times the judgment was thrown out by the appeals court.  In May, the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned her 2009 murder conviction and replaced it with the lesser charge of infanticide. On Friday, Effert got a three-year suspended sentence from Justice Joanne Veit of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench.  As a result, she was able to walk out of court, though she will have to abide by certain conditions.

“According to Justice Veit, Canada’s lack of an abortion law indicates that ‘while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support. Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother,’ she added.”

The good news is that – for now at least – not everyone has been happy about this decision. Jim Hughes of the Campaign Life Coalition said, “We live in a country where there is no protection for children in the womb right up until birth and now this judge has extended the protection for the perpetrator rather than the victim, even though the child is born and as such should be protected by the court.”

Mary Ellen Douglas, also of the CLC, said this: “It is time that Parliament, whose duty it is to protect and legislate regarding the Constitution, examine its duty with regard to the first constitutional right – ‘the right to life’ and enact legislation which recognizes that life begins at conception and must be protected from that time until natural death. The mother’s stress cannot equate to the loss of a lifetime for the child.”

Or as Jonathon Van Maren from the Canadian Center for Bioethical Reform stated, “While this ‘sentence’ is an outrageous miscarriage of justice, it should not be surprising. In a country where the age of a human being is directly correlated to their value, this decision is consistent with the belief that younger equals less valuable. What is rather surprising, however, is that this judge (and many commenting on the CBC article) apparently seem to believe that women are far too mentally weak after childbirth to make any rational decisions.

“Post-partum depression, this decision would seem to indicate, serves as an excuse to strangling your newborn. If you can prove you were depressed, killing your child is something that is understandable and if you listen to this judge, acceptable. If abortion advocates actually believe that women are so fragile after childbirth that strangling their child is understandable, I wonder what they would say if the same judge proposed that new mothers have to prove their sanity before taking custody of their newborn children? It is absurd to simultaneously claim that women are strong enough to do anything they choose in the world, but that childbirth, something they are biologically designed to do, will result in a spasm of murder. The only natural instinct abortion advocates believe women lack is the maternal instinct.”

Indeed, this slippery slope is not at all surprising or unexpected. The culture of death is simply being consistent here. If personhood and human dignity are not inherent and innate conditions, found in every single human being, then our ruling elites, judges and others will decide who should live and who should die.

The secular humanists and utilitarians like Singer have decided that we have no intrinsic worth or value, and value must be conferred upon us from without. Thus he even proposes that the newborn have to pass certain tests before they are allowed to live.

Several months ago Jeffrey T. Kuhner wrote this: “Abortion is liberalism’s genocide. Since Roe v. Wade, nearly 50 million babies have been killed – lives exterminated in the womb of their mothers. Abortion clinics are the Gulag Archipelago of the modern left – a vast system of death camps underpinning the liberal regime’s secular hedonism. For a godless society predicated upon consequence-free sex, pregnancy is an unwanted nuisance – and a barrier – that must be eliminated. If lives are destroyed, then that is the price of sexual utopia.”

Quite so. And now we can add infanticide to the mix.


[1068 words]

24 Replies to “Abortion One Day, Infanticide the Next”

  1. One of the arguments women use is “A woman’s right to control over her own body”. To that I reply:
    1. If they were serious about controlling their bodies, they would use contraception (which may include abstinence).
    2. Approximately half the babies aborted are female – why don’t they have a right to control their own body?
    John Bennett

  2. Contraception isn’t the answer. 50% of women have an oops baby in their lifetime, even with all the contraception education that is shoved down women’s throats.

    If the pill is 95% effective and 3.1 million women of reproductive age are on the pill. That makes 155000 unplanned pregnancies a year to women using contraception.

    Kylie Anderson

  3. Rights talk degenerates into whom can yell the loudest. Unfortunately, babies have no voice, particularly the unborn babe. For all that this battle is cast in terms of human rights it’s all about me. If it were about human rights and protection of the powerless and advocacy for the voiceless wouldn’t all the liberals be anti abortion?

    It’s all about me.

    Michael Hutton

  4. I have always been aware of the inconsistency of abortion being acceptable and infanticide unacceptable. Unfortunately this judge is now being consistently wrong instead of consistently right.

    Post-partum depression (not the baby blues) is a real and dangerous condition. Women with PPD and the additional stressor of sleep deprivation can truly not be thinking rationally. It is a very hard thing for a women to admit to a doctor or health worker that she has thoughts about killing her baby. The shame of being a bad mother and the fear of her child being taken away from her make it even harder for a new mum to ask for help than it is for an average person.

    The solution of course is not killing the baby but loving and helping them both. The women needs to feel safe and secure enough to ask for help so she can be given the skills and medication she needs to be able to mother her baby.

    Kylie Anderson

  5. How could we have to do with this regime, subsidise/support its brutal killing by our tax dollars? The blood of these innocent “image and likeness’ of God” is on our hands as Christians.
    Martin Snigg

  6. Does anyone but me reconise a similarity between abortion acvocates and baal worshipers making their children walk through the fires in ancient times that the scriptures talk of that preceeded the distruction of Israel?

    It seems that baal has become the new god of the masses, while those who worship the true God are the pariers. Glad I would never be invited to that group.

    Neil Waldron

  7. So the Alberta judge overturned the murder charge into an infanticide charge? But what does Canada’s law say on this matter? Is this something a judge should determine? Or is this just another case of a philosopher-king judge legislating from the bench?
    Damien Spillane

  8. When I read that I became saddened to be a Canadian. Perhaps, infanticide is not enough anymore? Perhaps next, until a child can walk, talk and feed itself, it will also be considered “late abortion”. This has now opened up the Pandora’s Box of inhumanity and disgrace of secularism and atheism. Sad.
    Monica Craver

  9. Hi Bill,

    Some time ago I watched a documentary on why certain ancient South American civilizations disappeared. In more than one case, it was discovered that the shamans and priests had begun sacrificing infants in the desperate attempt to regain the favor of their gods, just before their civilization completely collapsed. That was so similar to what happened just before Jerusalem was destroyed and the surviving Judahites were sent into exile, it sent an icy cold chill down my spine! I think the precedent is clear… when you willingly destroy the future, there is no future. It seems God sent the Judahites into captivity in Babylon in order to save them from themselves. I wonder what lies ahead for us…

    M.E. Huffmaster

  10. How can infanticide, the killing of an innocent, possibly be considered and judged to be of a “lesser charge” than murder? Surely it should be the other way about. Today Herod’s deliberate sin is still considered less than murder. The murder of individuals is always being justified by such statements: It was not me it was the drugs, the society etc. And the continual murder of masses of people (warfare) is being justified by such lame lies: we killed them all to create peace. This cannot end until our Lord Jesus Christ returns, the innocent, sinless one who was taken by wicked hands and crucified. All those who are not infants or elderly be thankful for the voice and life you have now, remember the peoples cry when they were asked “what shall I do with him”. Do not count on the law courts, the government or social services, they and their policies are fast becoming the number 1 risk on the risk assessment for the care of the voiceless.
    Paul Wilson

  11. I understand that this woman was actually jailed for a few days – not for killing her child, but for the crime of illegally disposing of a corpse by throwing the child over the fence!
    I sometimes wonder if indeed, God has decided to hand over western society to its evil desires.

    Joan Davidson

  12. Looking back at the 9/11 attacks, I find myself almost still in disbelief after all these years, to the fact that those horrible events actually took place and are a reality in human history…
    That very same, dark feeling, lies deep within me about abortion laws in Australia – what has happened!?
    How could things have possibly escelated to this degree?
    Abortion clinics spring up like convenience stores. What’s next? Suicide booths?

    Lord help us,

    Matt Lister

  13. See you all on the 8th Oct at 1:45. at March for the babies. I presume you have already written to pollies in Vic. And come to the C.D.P sausage sizzle afterwards.
    Sorry Bill if ads aren’t allowed. Details are on Saltshakers website.
    Matt I’m one of the guilty ones. I’m not good at protesting. Some of us are guilty because we failed to act sooner.

    Katherine Fishley

  14. Hi Bill, on the topic of abortion, I posted a link for an upcoming film with a mention to your twitter account (not sure if you received it though) but here it is:

    Seems worth watching, looks like free internet movie.

    Servaas Hofmeyr

  15. Bill,
    I think John’s lead comment is brilliant. Perhaps it could also be asked, if they are so keen on “controlling their own bodies”, why are they killing the body of someone else to “achieve” that? Since when did self-control involve taking total control over someone else, who cannot resist, and killing them off?
    Robert Greggery.

  16. Bill,
    While I was writing the previous post, I began to realise afresh how utterly dependent our babies are upon us, particularly at the very early stage. I remember holding my first born in my arms upon my lap, and realising that I could make or break this little one’s life, and it made me afraid that I had that much power.

    Three decades later and I look at the photos on the piano top, and they have children of their own, and are in Christ. One of the photos is my 27 year old daughter piggybacking on me down the track at Granpa’s. We are both laughing, but if we had aborted our children, there’d be no photos, no shared lives, and no laughter.

    Isn’t God good Who gives us love and life, and the love for life?
    Robert Greggery.

  17. Peter Singer is right in a way, value has been assigned to us externally, by Creator God, not by mere fickle sinful man, as he supposes.
    In the movie “come what may”, there is a scene where they are working out how to prove in a court of law that a baby is alive from conception. They suggested just to consider backward. Was baby alive a day before birth, a day before that, a day before that all the way to the significant event that took place, which was conception. There is no other significant event in the life of the unborn child that could have otherwise conferred hum life to it. I thought it was a brilliant argument.
    Many blessings
    Ursula Bennett

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *