The Democratic Party and Infanticide


Slippery slopes have always been an important factor to pay attention to in any political arena. If one dangerous precedent is set, who knows what could ensue as the fallout of that precedent gains steam. Take for instance the first amendment, at least most sane Americans who haven't bought into utter extremism still believe in the idea that censorship is inherently dangerous. While perhaps some things that are just too obscene may need to be held from the public eye in a sense, taking that sort of censorship and applying to reporting facts or to reporting opinions has always been viewed as a dangerous step to take. Indeed, if the American Government were to censor CNN or Fox, what's to stop America from going down the corrupted path that Nation States such as the Soviet Union or China have taken and just simply control the Media narrative.
The idea of precedent has always been why extremism has appeared so dangerous, because no matter what the side of extremism seems to be on, it will always set a precedent that implies the further destruction of rights or prosperity. Perhaps the most horrific historical example of precedent has been the act of dehumanizing other people. Black people were dehumanized in Europe and then America, and then became enslaved, Jews were dehumanized in Germany, and then were killed in devastating numbers at the whim of the Nazi regime. One thing all atrocities of this sort share in common is the act of taking away another person's humanity. Once you have successfully labeled a person to be devoid of the same rights you may afford another person, on the grounds that some quality of this person negates their status of person-hood, then you are free to do to them as you please, if in the antebellum south, the status of being a person was afforded to the black slaves, perhaps the abolition movement would have gained a much earlier foothold in the region, but instead for centuries, the enslaved people of America had their humanity disregarded and were labeled as a different type of being, this act of dehumanizing is the only way atrocities can be committed upon a whole group of people without such a stirring of the moral compass ingrained in the human heart that no person could possibly bear witness to such extreme horrors.
However, as the modern man may see it, these are horrors of the past, things our society has witnessed, overcome, and learned from. Perhaps, this man of today's society may admit, terrible abuses still occur in the far reaches of the world, but in America, in Europe, these sort of things must not happen anymore, it would be inconceivable that a mass slaughter could still occur in such an advanced nation as the United States. And so the modern man continues to live his life, content to rest upon his moral high ground and dismiss the horrific occurrences that occur in the third world as the result of poverty and political strife, completely unattached from the human beings moral depravity and utter willingness to place convenience above life in value.
Now the modern man sees a mass slaughter of people in Syria via poison gas as a horrible tragedy as he should, but turns a blind eye upon the killing of unborn children. A pro-choice advocate may point out that I criticize this "modern man" of falsely holding onto the belief that he hold's the moral high  ground, meanwhile hypocritically stating I hold the banner of morality, and I would respond to such an accusation, that I do not deceive myself into falsely believing myself to be the moral superior to my fellow man, whether I am or not is scarcely to the point, rather examine my arguments upon their merit alone.
Today we have officially utterly devalued the life of an unborn child. The push to legalize abortion up to the point of birth is obviously a result of this. How we have done this has come in a multitude of ways. First the life an unborn child has been devalued upon the status of person-hood not applying to a child that is not yet sentient. The argument goes, this child is not born, it has yet to receive full brain functioning and therefore it has yet to achieve the status of being a person, if it is not a person it is not afforded the same rights as we are. This argument already seems to align heavily with the great tragedies of our history, what it comes down to is that people have found a way to devalue a human life through an arbitrary measure, and so we have decided it is not the fact that the person is a human, but rather that they are functioning at an acceptable level, of course most abortions occur well after the fetus has developed a heart beat and many occur well after brain waves have begun, but instead out of the mere convenience of devaluing the human life, we have decided that a persons value comes from their mental function. What then is to stop the leap from ascribing value to people based on their IQ, is it then not true that if a Person of higher intelligence is more value, that they should have the right to abuse their fellow man who is of lesser intelligence on the merit of the fact that their intelligence may lead them to have a more significant impact on society. As civilized people we would reject such an absurd notion, yet it is not more than a stone toss away from devaluing a fetus on the basis that it has yet to attain sentience, and even if the fetus is a human but not a "person", what then is their status, do they have the same rights as a dog then, an animal? do we not give more rights to animals then the free mass slaughter of them without a purpose, currently in 46 of 50 states, it considered a felony offence to abuse an animal, and yet to kill an animal is a felony, to kill an unborn human is a women's right.
This leads to the next absurdity, the notion that it is the women's right to kill the child because the child is part of the women's body. This of course is absurd, while the child is indeed inside the women, it is a separate entity altogether from the women. to imply that a fetus is to a women in the same manner as her kidney is just false, a fetus is a living being, some feminists have described or devalued it as a parasite, but it is still a separate entity that is not part of the women's being. Just as a person on life support is not part of the life support, the baby which is dependent on the women is not part of the women's being. Now we come to the idea that since the fetus is a inconvenience, the women should have full jurisdiction as to what to do to that fetus, and one option is to murder it, now of course the argument of the viability of the fetus seems odd when compared with the viability of the grown man on life support, is he then no longer afforded the fundamental right to life. Of the fetus is not yet viable but if not a person yet, is there no value to the growing potential person inside a women. Often this argument is combated by the threat of the fetus to the mothers health and yet less than 1% of abortions are sited as being due to this cause. This red herring is thrown up constantly in the debate over abortion and yet the mother's life is rarely ever in danger, and so indeed it does come down to the convenience of bearing a child. I imagine it is highly dis-comfortable but me being a man does not negate my claim that despite how difficult it may be to bear a child, once you are bearing a child, you do not have a right to end its life unless your life is in danger. If we are to value human life, we can not possibly place the precedent that living in comfort is more important than another person's life, that is such a dangerous slope to be on.
Now I talk about slippery slopes, this may seem just like fear-mongering and yet today we have real evidence of this slippery slope coming to fruition. support for Abortion has now grown into support for infanticide. Delegate Kathy Tran(D) of Virigina pushed a bill that would allow abortions till the moment of birth. Don't take my word for it, take hers. When responding to a question 

Gilbert "So where its obvious a woman is about too give birth, she has physical signs that shes about to give birth, would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion if she was so certified? She's dilating."

Tran "you know that would be a decision that the doctor, the physician, and the woman would make."

Gilbert "I understand that. I'm asking if your bill allows that"

Tran "My bill would allow that yes."

The terrifying fact that some Democrats don't ascribe human value to a child merely because it is a certain amount of centimeters away from being delivered is insane. This is clearly no longer a discussion of viability, if a child is moments away from being delivered, there is no question of viability. When Abortion critics predicted that Roe V Wade would lead to the devaluation of human life and eventually infanticide, they were not wrong. Tran here is pushing a bill that calls for the legalization of murdering a fully developed baby just moment from it being delivered. And not only that, The Virginia democrats supported this bill, not just Tran. This isn't an issue relegated the depravity of Cuomo in New York, or the politics of California, this is happening in Virginia. And Northam, the governor of Virginia, came out an defended Tran. 

"Done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that's not viable. So in this particular example, if a mother's in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother"

The Governor of Virginia just stated that once baby is born and resuscitated, then the parents can discuss whether to end it's life.

Infanticide: The crime of killing a child within a year of it's birth. 


Comments

Popular Posts