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.