Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s “Abortions” of Live Babies

Post-Birth Abortion and Infanticide: The Difference Is…

From In Utero Child Abuse To Illegitimate Abortion

February 6, 2012 at 6:15 am , by 

14 months.

“What do you think the consequences should be for a woman who harms her unborn baby by drinking alcohol?”

That is the question a friend from high school recently asked on Facebook. She and her husband adopted a little girl from Russia who suffers from several physical conditions because the birth mom drank alcohol while pregnant.

It’s common knowledge that when an expecting mom drinks alcohol, it greatly puts an unborn baby at risk. Granted, alcohol isn’t the only harmful threat for a child in regards to the pregnant mom’s wreckless behavior.

What about drugs? What about carelessness in general? What consequences are there for those in our society whom we consider to be “unfit mothers?”

It’s not like it’s easy to always pinpoint the “birth defects” of a child on the mother’s bad decisions. After all, not every baby born from a good mother makes it into this world perfectly healthy.

But going back to the topic of pregnant mothers who make destructive decisions, what exactly can we consider to be “child abuse” in the womb? Or as I like to call it: in utero child abuse.

For me, though, I take this topic a level further:

If a mother deliberately harms her fetus with the intent to kill her child, maybe by using a coat hanger, or having someone repeatedly punch her stomach, or even if the mom herself shoots her own stomach with a gun, and the child dies in the womb, is that definitely considered murder?

I realize each state may have its laws regarding this situation, but I’m less concerned with man’s law and more interested to know how our society perceives this within our own moral scope.

When a mother intentionally terminates her pregnancy on her own in some unthinkable way I just named, is that definitely murder?

Or do we deem that as an illegimate version of an abortion?

Image: Pregnant woman holding a cigarette, via Shutterstock.

Controversial YouTube Video “180″ Compares Holocaust to Abortion

October 29, 2011 at 12:22 am , by 

Eleven months.

Despite being 33 minutes long, “180″ reached over one million views in less than its first month on YouTube. The extremely engaging video consists of a Jewish man asking people on the street whether or not they would have killed Adolf Hitler if they had the chance. Then he follows up by asking if they would have killed Hitler’s mother while she was pregnant with him.

Eventually the people are asked to finish the sentence, “It’s okay to kill a baby when…”.

“180″ shares the interesting comparison that over 11 million people (not just Jews, but also homosexuals and children with Downs Syndrome) were killed under Hitler’s direction, while over 53 million babies have been aborted since abortion was made legal in the United States back in 1973.

Back in August, I published my most controversial (and 2nd most popular) Dadabase post to date, entitled “The Half Abortion: Only Keeping One Twin.” Since then, it has received comments on a nearly daily basis. Why? It asks some deep, yet relevant questions.

We all like to think of ourselves as good people; that if there is a Heaven, we will be good enough to make the cut. By asking these deep, difficult, and controversial questions, it makes it easier to decipher the differences between “good” and “evil.” If Hitler is the obvious worst person who ever lived, then who’s with him?

Is it legitimate to compare the Holocaust to legalized abortion in America?

I am very curious to hear your thoughts on this. Of course, it will be pretty hard to take your comment seriouslyif you haven’t actually watched the entire video. So now I invite you to go deep into some serious stuff here with me today.

In 33 minutes, leave a comment to let me know your thoughts.

*Warning: Video contains some brief, disturbing images.

 

The Half Abortion: Only Keeping One Twin

August 14, 2011 at 8:31 pm , by 

Eight months.

In today’s publication of the New York Times, there is an article entitled The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy. It tells of the growing number of women who are pregnant with twins and choose to abort only one of the fetuses, and allowing the other to survive.  In other words, these women are having a “half abortion.”

According to the article, New York’s Mount Sinai Medical Center performed 101 abortions last year; 38 of those pregnancy terminations involved a mother pregnant with twins who decided to only abort one unborn child.  And that’s just one medical center in the entire country.

One mother who used fertility drugs to get pregnant, then aborted only one fetus, gives her reasoning for the decision:

“If I had conceived these twins naturally, I wouldn’t have reduced this pregnancy, because you feel like if there’s a natural order, then you don’t want to disturb it. But we created this child in such an artificial manner — in a test tube, choosing an egg donor, having the embryo placed in me — and somehow, making a decision about how many to carry seemed to be just another choice. The pregnancy was all so consumerish to begin with, and this became yet another thing we could control.”

What is it about the idea of a half abortion that somehow seems more difficult to grasp than a “normal” abortion?  The immediate thing that comes to mind is that it is an ultimate case of “playing God.” As if a “normal” abortion wasn’t already giving one person the authority to choose another human being’s ability to live, a half abortion gives a person the ability to decide which unborn child deserves to live and which one deserves to die. That’s playing God, times two.

Is there any justification for a half abortion? The article in the New York Times gives several examples of why women made their decision:

1. The mother was 45 years old and already had children.  She felt financially insecure, as well as, too old to have twins.

2. The mother was known as a “good parent,” highly devoted to her children.  Pregnant with twins, she decided she couldn’t be equally devoted to two more; just one.

3. The mother already had a son. Then she got pregnant with twins; a boy and a girl.  She chose to keep the girl.

4. Many of these mothers were in their 2nd marriage and already have kids from their previous marriages.  Twins would have been too complicated, compared to only one more addition to the family.

5.  Some were single mothers.

6. Some mothers did not want to jeopardize their education.

7. Some did not want to jeopardize their careers.

8. One woman’s husband was an officer in the Army, fighting in Iraq. They already had a few kids.  Twins were too much a risk if something happened to her husband.

For those of us unfamiliar with the idea of a half abortion until today, we now make a decision in our own minds of whether it is ethically justifiable or wrong. The fact that The New York Times is doing a story about it says something in and of itself: This is not your typical “gray area” moral dilemma.

This isn’t a discussion about whether abortion is right or wrong, in general.  Honestly, “pro-choice vs. pro-life” debates bore me. Polls show that our nation is split 50/50 on abortion.  Most of us have already made up our minds on the issue and the truth is, we are not going to convince each other otherwise via comments on a blog post; especially if we ourselves play God by judging other people’s character and life decisions.

I hope it is clear that I am not asking anyone to cast stones, but instead to think with an open mind about a tough issue that has some undeniable ethical questions surrounding it. I enjoy mature, mutually respectable, deep conversations. Therefore, I’m curious to know how other people feel about the “two minus one pregnancy.”  What ethical issues does the half abortion raise?