President George W. Bush signs the Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 in Pittsburgh, Pa., Monday, Aug. 5, 2002.
In April, President George W. Bush issued a directive instructing doctors to make every effort to save the lives of premature babies born after failed abortions. The new measure is a step towards enforcing the 2002 law known as the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. Under this law, an infant that survives an abortion procedure is no longer a fetus, but a person entitled to emergency medical care and protection against child abuse and neglect.
This law was aimed at preventing situations created by botched abortions, where the baby survives the abortion procedure but is nonetheless left to die. Hearings in Congress on this topic produced disturbing testimony about failed abortions. One medical worker testified concerning one baby who survived an abortion: â€œthe child was breathing, the heart was beating and the child continued to live for several hoursâ€ before finally dying.
According to the New York Times, Naral Pro-Choice America and the Center for Reproductive Rights were asked to comment on the new enforcement measure. Their response was a â€œno comment.â€
I think it is remarkable that Naral and the CRR cannot recognize the absolute atrocity of letting a little baby die on the operating table. I know that Naral and the CRR are clear about their support for legalizing the killing of unborn babies. But why canâ€™t they be just as clear in condemning the killing of babies born alive?
Maybe itâ€™s because these pro-choice advocates would have to admit that there is no morally significant difference between the baby inside the birth canal and the baby outside the birth canal. If the baby is treated as a human person immediately after birth, why is not treated as such immediately before birth? Does the baby go through some magical transformation from non-person to person in the inches that separate the pre-born form the born?
I think the pro-choicers know that if life is treated as precious just outside the womb, then there is no reason not to treat it as precious just inside the womb. And they donâ€™t want to go there. This is why the pro-choice group had â€œno comment.â€ Truly there is no sane comment that could justify their morally indefensible position.
Source: “New Attention for 2002 Law on Survivors of Abortions” – New York Times
taking your post logically one step further: the pro-choice movement is insane.
Pro Life defined meand let life survive.
Pro choice defined means to halt or stop life by any means possible…what kind of choice is that? it is murder….A choice to murder life.