What do you call a failed abortion?
And why wouldn’t we want to protect the lives of all children? Because if we had to provide medical care for these particular children, it would be a public acknowledgement that abortion is a deliberate act to take the life of innocent and helpless human beings.
Yesterday, All but 3 Democrats in the House of Representatives voted against a bill to require medical care for babies born alive after a failed abortion. This is horrific but not surprising because this has been the track record of pro-abortion politicians for years.
Several things are worth noting. This approach challenges the sincerity of the the way abortion is typically justified. Are we really serious in our conversations about “when life begins” or about the bodily rights of women as the foundation for abortion rights? In the case of an infant born alive after an abortion procedure, the child is no longer inside the body of the pregnant woman, thus there are no bodily rights. She is no longer “hooked up to the violinist.” Further, the baby is outside the womb, alive. Under what moral principal would anyone attempt to justify denying lifesaving measures to a living human infant? The woman is no longer pregnant, wasn’t that the goal?
The response to this law shows that we are currently protecting (and funding, and celebrating) the right, not simply to avoid pregnancy, or protect the rights of women. We are protecting the right to kill distinct living human beings. Even after they are viable. Even after they are outside the woman’s body. Even after our failed attempts to kill them.
What other conclusion can we come to? The only acceptable outcome of abortion is a dead child? And the fact that numerous children have survived after failed abortions is a mirror to show what we are trying to hide behind all of the casuistry and euphemisms.