Green Room

Sanctioning Infanticide As an Ends Justifying The Means

posted at 1:47 am on August 8, 2010 by

Originally posted at NewsReal:


Barbara Boxer was recently up in arms over some words. No,  this time it wasn’t the oh-so horrifying word ma’am. She was up in arms over her own words or, more to the point, the fact that George Will was holding her to her own words – words that expressed a pro-abortion position so extreme, it can only be described, no matter one’s position on abortion, as outright infanticide. So, she pulled the handy old “out of context” card. Only, it was totally in context, with full video documentation.George Will quoted Barbara Boxer’s own words – in context – in a Newsweek article last month. Here is one of the relevant sections:

In the 1999 colloquy, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) said: Suppose during this procedure the baby slips entirely from the mother’s birth canal. “You agree, once a child is born, is separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed? Do you agree with that?” Boxer: “I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born … the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights.” Santorum persisted: “Obviously, you don’t mean they have to take the baby out of the hospital for it to be protected by the Constitution. Once the baby is separated from the mother, you would agree—completely separated from the mother—you would agree that the baby is entitled to constitutional protection?” She would not say “yes.” Instead, she said, understandably: “I don’t want to engage in this.”

She didn’t want to engage in it. I wouldn’t want to engage in it either, if I was flagrantly sanctioning infanticide and depriving human beings of Constitutional rights, as Barbara Boxer was. Boxer then tried to back-pedal a bit, as you can see in the video of the C-SPAN recording below:

Her back-pedaling, however, only served to show how delusional her comments are. Her, and other pro-abortionists’, alleged arguments are nowhere near based in sanity. If a toe is still inside the mother, then, says Boxer, you can’t kill the baby. But, if a whole foot? She chose not to answer. Yet, in a partial birth abortion, only the top of the baby’s head remains inside the mother – the entire body and part of the head is fully delivered. Then, in the part of the skull that is outside of the mother’s body, an instrument is used to stab the skull, creating a puncture from which the baby’s brain is then sucked out. And the baby is left to die.

Barbara Boxer, horrifyingly, is not alone in these beliefs. Our own president not only would not ban partial birth abortion, but when a senator in Illinois, he wouldn’t even protect babies who miraculously survived abortion attempts. He was more concerned with the feelings of the mothers, protecting abortion itself, and with protecting doctors, who shouldn’t be required to save those pesky babies – human lives, with the strong survival instinct therein and the will to live. He felt so little for the babies, he phrased his questioning during the debate over the Born Alive bill as such:

As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it — is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead..

Not just coming out limp and dead. And not brought home from the hospital, as Boxer argues. How dare these babies live!

In 1973, seven black-robed men gave these pro-abortionists cover for their irrational and, frankly, inhumane rationales by not only creating a right to abortion, but by also inventing some sort of “viability” out. Which is being pushed further and further to now include babies that are fully born. Babies – human lives – who could survive outside of the womb, but who are, instead, pierced in the skull and left to die. Alone. Never once receiving sustenance, nor even feeling a human touch nor the love of cradling arms.

Worse, most pro-abortionists actually know this is the taking of a life. They just don’t care.

Ann Rice was recently interviewed by the useless bint known as Joy Behar. Behar asked her if she believes that abortion is the pre-meditated taking of a human life. Rice answered Yes. And then went on to say that it shouldn’t be illegal. It’s murder, she admits, yet it should be condoned. Why? The answer lies in a recent London Times article by Antonia Senior – an answer that exposes pro-abortionists as a type of fanatical zealot:

What seems increasingly clear to me is that, in the absence of an objective definition, a foetus is a life by any subjective measure.

She clearly states an unborn baby is life. She goes onto say that abortion is, in fact, the taking of that life. So, why is she, and others like her, still pro-abortion? Because life matters little to ideological zealots:

But you cannot separate women’s rights from their right to fertility control. The single biggest factor in women’s liberation was our newly found ability to impose our will on our biology.

The belief that nature itself is some stealth patriarchal evil plot to subjugate women. Women cannot be “liberated” unless freed of their biology and anatomy. Therefore, killing is acceptable. It’s for a good cause, you see:

As ever, when an issue we thought was black and white becomes more nuanced, the answer lies in choosing the lesser evil. The nearly 200,000 aborted babies in the UK each year are the lesser evil, no matter how you define life, or death, for that matter. If you are willing to die for a cause, you must be prepared to kill for it, too.

The lesser evil. The killing of the innocent – for a cause – is a lesser evil. Barbara Boxer, President Obama and those who hold unconditional, pro-abortion positions are willingly complicit in what they actually know is the taking of a life, all to further dogmatic ideology and political agendas. Babies, be damned.

They know it’s the taking of a life. They just don’t care. Because the ends justify the means. In this instance, horrifically, the means is the mass killing of innocent babies.

50 million in the United States alone. And counting.

—–

(cross-posted from NewsReal)

Follow Lori  on Twitter and read more of her Newsreal posts here and at Snark and Boobs

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

They just don’t care. Because the ends justify the means.

I’ve never properly understood the “ends” here. I’ve never heard of a case where a woman was going to die if she didn’t get an abortion. It may have happened, but if did, that reason seems vanishingly small, especially in the context of 50 million.

So the “ends” seems to me either a ridiculous “I am woman, hear me roar! (as I eat my young)” or a “I’m too busy/not ready/life’s hard enough” excuse.

Those are some pretty noble “ends” right there.

But, hey. I’ve been reliably assured I’m against abortion because I hate women and am a fundamentalist Dark Age ne’er-do-well. Plus I’m also probably a racist.

Aquateen Hungerforce on August 8, 2010 at 2:11 AM

Our own president not only would not ban partial birth abortion, but when a senator in Illinois, he wouldn’t even protect babies who miraculously survived abortion attempts.

That is not the case. He voted against that law because the situation described above was already prohibited by existing law. I was just reading a transcript of that debate looking for something on a different topic and came across the following quote from the debate with McCain.

With respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, as long as there’s an exception for the mother’s health and life, and this bill did not contain that exception

Source: 2008 third presidential debate against John McCain Oct 15, 2008

I will leave it to others to double check my late night assumption on this particular point.

lexhamfox on August 8, 2010 at 5:06 AM

The reality of liberals should chill every true American. Eugenics is all it’s about, controlling who lives and who the liberals decide dies.

tarpon on August 8, 2010 at 8:44 AM

lexhamfox on August 8, 2010 at 5:06 AM

Obama was lying in the debate when he said that.

zmdavid on August 8, 2010 at 9:28 AM

Ms. Rice, women have always had the ability to impose their will on their biology. If you’re not desirous of having a child, then don’t risk it by having indiscriminate sex.

KGB on August 8, 2010 at 9:31 AM

Here’s a roundup from Newsbusters from Aug. 2008 about it. The Illinois bill did have the protections he wanted in it and he still blocked it.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/08/18/campaign-admits-obama-lied-about-abortion-vote-media-asleep

If you’re for infanticide, lying isn’t so hard.

zmdavid on August 8, 2010 at 9:38 AM

Why don’t a lot of these women opting for an abortion exercise their fertility rights with some pre-sex prevention. Where were these girls when the schools were teaching sex ed? Behind the gym.

Kissmygrits on August 8, 2010 at 9:54 AM

Here’s a roundup from Newsbusters from Aug. 2008 about it. The Illinois bill did have the protections he wanted in it and he still blocked it.
zmdavid on August 8, 2010 at 9:38 AM

Correct. He lied. Moreover, his own committee inserted the protections and he still voted against it. Liar and extremist.

rrpjr on August 8, 2010 at 10:03 AM

The problem here is not Barbara Boxer but the far left communists from San Francisco and Berkely – people always get the politicians that they deserve and Californian liberals deserve nothing less than a contemptible and repugnant militant abortionist like Barbara Boxer.

Of course i feel sad for all those who are conservative and live in California – hey,you still have good weather.. right?

nagee76 on August 8, 2010 at 10:22 AM

That is not the case. He voted against that law because the situation described above was already prohibited by existing law. I was just reading a transcript of that debate looking for something on a different topic and came across the following quote from the debate with McCain.

This is not true. The law only protected infants deemed viable. Obviously this creates a giant loop hole since the doctor intending to kill the child is the one who then decides if the child was viable. The law would protect all children born alive after abortion, without regard to any subjective claim of viability.

Vera on August 8, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Obama also claimed during the election that he would have supported IL BAIPA if it was identical to the federal law. It was. In fact, his own committe took strides to make sure the law was identical to the federal law and he STILL voted against it.

Obama also said “this is a time when folks are lying” regarding his votes, but the NRL posted the commmitte notes the next day proving that Obama was, in fact, the liar.

Vera on August 8, 2010 at 12:10 PM

as long as there’s an exception for the mother’s health and life, and this bill did not contain that exception.

What does NOT fit in to that exception ? Feeling stressed ? Sure, close enough… Not sleeping well, frequent trips to the bathroom ? Absolutely. The Mothers LIFE is, the only exception tolerable.

Jeff2161 on August 8, 2010 at 2:10 PM

That is not the case. He voted against that law because the situation described above was already prohibited by existing law. I was just reading a transcript of that debate looking for something on a different topic and came across the following quote from the debate with McCain.

lexhamfox on August 8, 2010 at 5:06 AM

Wrong. The law didn’t cover this instance, otherwise the doctor would have been prosecuted… and he was not. I heard the WHOLE debate, and then State Senator Obama clearly defended letting a doctor put a child in a closet and deny it medical care until it had died.

You can find a partial transcript here:

http://article.nationalreview.com/367248/why-obama-really-voted-for-infanticide/andrew-c-mccarthy

theCork on August 9, 2010 at 1:38 PM

If you are willing to die for a cause, you must be prepared to kill for it, too.

I wonder if that’s also how Obama looks at things?

theCork on August 9, 2010 at 1:40 PM

“It’s my body” and all those other silly pro-abortion lies have been put to bed permanently when they elected Obama, who argued on the Illinois Senate floor for slaughtering a fully born, completely separated infant, based – not upon when its life began, or whose body it was or was not in, but upon the legal gobbledygook of “intent”- planned legal nonsense designed in the bowels of Harvard Law to give future Supreme Court justices less embarrassment say than having to create from imagination, fictitious things like the finding of mysterious “emanations from penumbras”
All that mattered to Obama and those who voted for him, content with his positions on abortion, was a woman’s intent to abort. He conveniently failed to answer a simple question with his legal cleverness. How long after the baby is born and separated from its mother, does this intent thing last; 1 day, a week, a year, a decade…?

Don L on August 9, 2010 at 7:15 PM

First, get an abortionist to admit that a fetus is alive. It is moving around, so that shouldn’t be hard. Then ask, is it a human life, or some other kind? A bear? A cat? A bird?

The truth is so awful, no one wants to admit it. 40 million children have been killed by thoughtless Americans since Roe v. Wade, because we would rather have sex than raise children. That is much worse than the Holocaust, because that was a temporary nationalistic madness. This is a reasoned, voluntary choice taken by a free people. Thanks to the Supreme Court, those Platonic Guardians. That is unsupportable, and we can never admit it. Plus, at this point, American women (men, too, I know) are so promiscuous that they are mentally unable to stop having sex.

The best part of a woman, being a mother, has been completely perverted into a monstrosity.

GTR640 on August 9, 2010 at 8:07 PM

My question of the day.
Should an eight year old give birth?

Observation on August 9, 2010 at 8:35 PM

‘The best part of a woman, being a mother’

nice of you to decide for everyone

Observation on August 9, 2010 at 8:36 PM

Why is it a crime if a woman with an unborn child is murdered and the baby dies, the person is tried for the death of both the mother and unborn baby, yet when a person has an abortion, the baby is deemed a fetus and the murder is o.k.? I would like to see a defense attorney work that in as an argument! Murder by any other name is still murder.

holymoly on August 9, 2010 at 8:38 PM

nice of you to decide for everyone

My opinion

GTR640 on August 9, 2010 at 8:50 PM

If God creates life then there’s simply no debate.

Mojave Mark on August 10, 2010 at 1:16 AM

With respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, as long as there’s an exception for the mother’s health and life,

And how, exactly, does it improve the mother’s health and life for the child to be killed instead of delivered prematurely? Plenty of 24 weeker “fetuses” survive to live long and happy lives.

Quisp on August 10, 2010 at 6:38 AM

When you get right down to it, no baby is “viable” when it is born. Not one of them is capable of feeding itself, clothing itself, or getting around on it’s own. Each child requires years of careful and sustained care in order to reach a point where it can be reliably called “viable”. Before the age of three, almost any child abandoned to it’s own devices would be almost certain to die in a short amount of time.

gridlock2 on August 10, 2010 at 7:22 AM

Boxer is a despicable, obfuscating charlatan whi will lie to make herself look to be not the monster she is. Whether you agree with Santorum’s argument or not, Boxer would not answer the question. She wants infanticide. Once the baby is being, the progressive tense, born, can you end its life? If the baby is in the process of being born, hasn’t the mother already suffered the vicissitudes of childbirth? She is a witch, and not a very smart witch.

allstonian on August 10, 2010 at 7:41 AM