By DEXTER DUGGAN
A suburban Phoenix teenager allegedly throws her newborn baby out a window to conceal that she’d been pregnant.
A New York teenager is arrested as an alleged shoplifter while carrying her newborn dead baby in a bag with her in Manhattan.
An East St. Louis woman in her early 20s reportedly gives birth and throws the infant out an upstairs window.
A dead infant is found on a conveyor belt at a recycling center in Victorville, Calif.
A baby is found newborn, abandoned, and dead in a Mecca, Calif., city park. A woman in her 30s is arrested, reportedly for voluntary manslaughter.
These are a few tragic stories that made the news just in late September and October 2013.
Often the mothers could have taken their infants to a “baby safe haven,” where they could have given the newborns, no questions asked, to officials like police or firemen, who could have begun the process of obtaining new homes for the babies. But the mothers showed no concern like this for the little lives.
A letter to the editor in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch addressed the discarded baby incident in the news there.
“Indeed, there is no respect for life. Those weakest among us, the defenseless infant, is viewed by society as throwaway, garbage,” wrote Angela Michael. “I ask you, what would cause a mother, one who is supposed to be a child’s fiercest protector, to toss her baby, living or not, out a window like trash? It all comes back to the lie of abortion and choice.”
Regarding New York’s alleged shoplifter, an assistant district attorney there was quoted that “doing that shoplifting with the baby in her bag the entire time certainly suggests a little bit of difficulty following society’s rules.”
However, correctly following society’s rules has become a bit mystifying to younger people who’ve spent their existences under a Supreme Court-created legal structure from 1973 that holds “wantedness” to be an important element in affording protection to life.
For their entire lives, the mothers in these instances have heard from the law, as resoundingly trumpeted by the media, that they have the basic right to dispose of their babies at any time before birth.
It may take a Harvard lawyer, or a Supreme Court justice, to explain the hair-splitting difference between legally trashing a baby moments before birth and potentially criminally murdering that same baby moments after birth. If the law is a teacher, its lessons need to make plainer sense.
“Progressives” probably don’t want to face the fact, but their Supreme Court-sanctioned open season on unborn babies has effectively been returning the people of this nation, year by year, to barbarism. And tossing a baby out a window isn’t the only cruelty.
Pathologists who have to deal directly with the results of the High Court’s airy freedom-to-abort theories know the appalling reality of the destroyed little bodies. An October 24 blog post at LifeSite
News.com, “Pathologists share their horror stories of handling bodies of aborted babies,” said:
“These people work in the dark underbelly of our society, where the corpses of the inconvenient arrive to be disposed of. They see the . . . bodies brought about by the narcissism of our culture’s rotting soul. No sacrifice is too great for the right to live how we want, even if it means others cannot live at all.”
Making A Difference
In a November 1 telephone interview, a staff counsel at the Washington, D.C.-based Americans United for Life told The Wanderer that the homicide trial this year of Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell helped draw attention to the schizophrenia between legal late permissive abortion and illegal killing after birth.
“[A] consistent view would be that we protect all human life,” said staff counsel Anna Franzonello, but “we allow abortion for any reason up until the point of birth.”
In a society with widespread permissive abortion, Franzonello said, “the other options for women, like adoption . . . oftentimes seem off the table, or they’re not hearing about them. . . .
“People feel upset or outraged by these” news stories about discarded newborns, she said, but a mother “could have taken the life of that child by abortion” a few days earlier, and “people wouldn’t have batted an eye.”
However, Franzonello added, such factors as modern ultrasound technology are making a difference in how people perceive the unborn.
“We recognize that this is human life. . . . We recognize that these are babies,” she said. “It’s challenging other people” on views they’ve had.
“As a whole, when you’re looking at the younger generation of Americans . . . you see more people self-identify as pro-life,” or people generally reject abortion when given specific reasons for it, she said.
On the other hand, a big push for permissive abortion comes from Planned Parenthood, she said, because abortion is an “industry” and a big-profit-maker.
“This isn’t a charity organization that’s doing it,” Franzonello said. “. . . Planned Parenthood lobbies. They have a huge lobby. . . . It’s a big business.”
Often young mothers troubled by pregnancy “don’t have a parent in their life” to assist them, she said, “. . . but there are these wonderful pregnancy resource centers” around the nation that would “enable them to make a life-affirming choice.”
Silent Screams
As for the medical facts that pathologists have to face when dealing with the remains of aborted babies, a national pro-life activist said it was “a tough read” to review the October 24 LifeSite
News.com blog about mangled bodies.
Jim Sedlak, vice president of the Virginia-based American Life League, told The Wanderer in a statement:
“Although the so-called pro-choice individuals are always trumpeting abortion as a right, they never want people to actually see what abortion is. These pathologists know. They see these lives snuffed out in the name of choice and they are rightfully repulsed by the horror.
“There is an old proverb that ‘The eyes are the windows of the soul.’ The fact that these pathologists are particularly horrified by the eyes of the aborted babies is very telling of the trauma that is being inflicted on innocent children,” Sedlak continued.
“Many years ago,” he said, “Dr. Bernard Nathanson produced a film called The Silent Scream. Pro-choice advocates claimed that Nathanson’s film was not scientifically accurate. Yet, the silent screams that are encountered by these pathologists as they view the severed heads of aborted babies give witness both to the accuracy of Nathanson’s film and the reality of abortion’s aftermath.”
Nathanson was a leading champion of permissive abortion who performed tens of thousands of abortions himself. However, he stopped doing them as he reflected on the facts of prenatal development. Although an atheist, Nathanson became a strong pro-lifer and later converted to Roman Catholicism.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress