Doe v. Bolton<\/em>\u00a0(a companion case to\u00a0Roe v. Wade) <\/em>significantly expanded the definition of the “health” exceptions. The ruling interpreted “health” very broadly<\/em>, encompassing a woman’s overall well-being, not just physical danger. This broad interpretation enabled a woman to obtain an abortion at any point in her pregnancy<\/em>, <\/strong>to protect her “health,” as defined by the attending physician.<\/p>\n Similarly, California law (Assembly Bill AB 2223 in 2022) previously prohibited abortion after the point of fetal viability but included an exception, when a physician determined it was necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant person (once again, a broadly defined standard).<\/p>\n Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont,\u00a0along with the\u00a0District of Columbia, do not have bans based on how far along a pregnancy is. Their laws protect the right to abortion throughout pregnancy<\/em>.\u00a0These jurisdictions impose no gestational limits, making abortion legal at any stage of pregnancy.<\/p>\n Since abortion can be performed up until birth in some jurisdictions, it can be viewed as a natural extension to allow infanticide after birth. In 1982, \u201cBaby Doe\u201d was born in Bloomington, Indiana. A routine operation could have fixed the problem of a birth defect that would not allow food to pass into this boy\u2019s stomach. However, the parents and doctors decided to let him starve to death because he had Down Syndrome. Many families came forward, willing to adopt the child. The Supreme Court in Indiana ruled that the parents had the right to withhold care, which would mean that the child would starve to death. The child was not given food or water and died in agony a few days later.<\/p>\n Kathy Tran, a Democratic legislator in Virginia, stated during a 2019 committee hearing that her bill (HB 249) would allow abortion up until birth.\u00a0 Republican Delegate Todd Gilbert asked if the bill would allow an abortion when a woman is “about to give birth” and “is dilating.” Tran initially responded that it would be “a decision that the doctor, the physician, and the woman would make at that point.” When pressed further on whether her bill specifically allowed it, Tran replied, “My bill would allow that, yes.”<\/p>\n Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam also voiced support for legislation that would significantly loosen restrictions on late-term abortion. He stated that if a mother is in labor, \u201cThe infant would be delivered. <\/em>The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that\u2019s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.\u201d<\/p>\n Democrats in Congress voted against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would have required medical providers to provide care to infants who survive an attempted abortion. The act would have mandated that healthcare providers give such children the same level of care as any other newborn, ensured immediate transport to a hospital, required reporting violations to law enforcement, and imposed criminal penalties for intentionally killing a newborn child.<\/p>\n Logic suggests that the same reasoning used to justify late-term abortions could justify ending the child\u2019s life right after birth. In Mothers Who Kill Their Children<\/em> by Cheryl Meyer and Michelle Oberman, the authors report on numerous cases of women who have killed their children after<\/u> birth (some very famous). They discovered that, for various reasons, these children only became unwanted after they were born.<\/p>\n In fact, if the newborn baby\u2019s life is worth so little, couldn\u2019t a case be made (like the Nazi doctors did), to harvest their organs before they\u2019re killed and give them to those babies whose parents want them to live?<\/p>\n Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and a Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne, has argued that infanticide under certain circumstances, particularly for severely disabled infants, would be morally permissible. He claims that newborns are not “persons” in a moral sense because they lack self-consciousness and the capacity to envision a future life. Singer writes:<\/p>\n If the fetus does not have the same claim to life as a person, it appears that the newborn baby does not either, and the life of a newborn baby is of less value to it than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee is to the nonhuman animal . . . so to kill a newborn baby cannot violate the principle of respect for autonomy. In all this the newborn baby is on the same footing as the fetus, and hence fewer reasons exist against killing both babies and fetuses. (Practical Ethics p.169 & 171)<\/p>\n James Watson, a Nobel Laureate in 1973, similarly stated: \u201cIf a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice . . . the doctor could allow the child to die, if the parents so choose, and save a lot of misery and suffering\u201d (Children from the Laboratory, J. Watson, AMA Prism, Ch.3 p.2. May 1973). Dr. Francis Crick, also a Nobel Prize winner in 1978, supported infanticide.<\/p>\n Alberto Giubilinim & Francesca Minerva argue that since both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, but are only potential persons, what we call \u2018after-birth abortion\u2019 (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is allowed. \u00a0This includes cases where the newborn is not disabled (especially since there can be misdiagnosis or no diagnosis at all).<\/p>\n Lucas Warren, 2018 Gerber spokesbaby<\/p><\/div>\n Ancient Greece allowed infanticide, so those they deemed \u201cdefectives\u201d would not pollute their society.<\/p>\n In the United States, the eugenics movement was promoted by Margaret Sanger, the founder of what is today known as Planned Parenthood.<\/p>\n In Germany in the 1930s and 1940s, eugenics was used to eliminate after<\/em> birth more than 100,000 lives of those who had mental or physical disabilities. This was before the Nazi regime even began the \u201cJewish solution.\u201d<\/p>\n As the saying goes: \u201cwe\u2019re not putting them out of their<\/em> misery \u2013 but putting them out of our<\/em> misery.\u201d Thus, infanticide becomes a reality.<\/p>\n ================================<\/p>\n For a post that does follow-up to the “Baby Doe” case mentioned in this post, see:\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\nFrom Late-Term Abortion to Infanticide<\/strong><\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/blog-life.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nBioethics and the Justification of Infanticide<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Historical and Eugenic Precedents<\/strong><\/h3>\n
<\/a>