Thursday, August 15, 2013

How Common is Infanticide in Abortion Facilities?

[Today's guest post by Frank Ludwig is part of our paid blogging program.]

In ancient Rome it was customary to present a newborn child to the family patriarch who would decide whether the infant would live or die. Today this right is claimed by the mothers.

While the majority of even late-term abortion campaigners agree that life begins at birth at the latest, that magical moment when a tissue blob suddenly turns into a human being, there are also those who promote the mother’s right to kill her newborn child, especially after a failed abortion attempt. Not everybody phrases it as bluntly as Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, who employ the oxymoron “after-birth abortion,” but the euphemisms used by others leave no doubt about their position. Abortion clinics’ staff, such as in Dr.Emily Women’s Health Center in the Bronx, refer to children who are born alive as “specimen” or, incorrectly, as “the pregnancy,” tell their clients they’ll be put in a toxic solution and give advice as to how to dispose of a live-born child at home. Planned Parenthood, according to their representative Alisa LaPolt Snow, “believe[s] that, you know, any decision that's made [about a child born alive] should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.” (Under public pressure, Planned Parenthood distanced itself from that statement.)

Some go as far as MSNBC host Melissa Harris Perry, who believes that the beginning of life “depends an awful lot on the feeling of the parents. A powerful feeling – but not science." By this logic, there is no upper age limit for “aborting” a child after birth, so we all should tread very softly around our parents.

Infanticide has influential advocates such as Bill Clinton, who vetoed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which would have banned “terminations” that take place during birth, in 1995 and 1997 (a similar act was finally signed into law in 2003); and Barack Obama, who voted several times against Illinois’ Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (which, as the title suggests, was designed to protect children who are born alive) in 2001 and 2002, stating: “What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women” and that it “would have taken away from doctors their professional judgment when a fetus is viable.”

In May 2013, serial killer Kermit Gosnell was convicted of three counts of murder (among other charges). For those who follow the liberal press, Gosnell was an abortion provider who on several occasions “induced labour, forced the live birth of viable babies in the sixth, seventh, eighth month of pregnancy and then killed those babies by cutting into the back of the neck with scissors and severing their spinal cord.” Even though he was only convicted of three counts of murder, his employees describe this technique as a standard procedure that was carried out on a regular basis. Given that Gosnell performed abortions from 1972 (before they were legal) until his arrest in 2011, he may well be the most prolific serial killer in history.

In the wake of the Gosnell trial, three former assistants of abortion provider Douglas Karpen in Texas came forward and testified in gruesome detail how every day their employer would kill several live-born children or bin them while they were still alive.

Other facilities just shelve the newborn children until they die, which can take up to several days. This practice was highlighted in 1999 by Jill Stanek, who worked in the Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois as a nurse. Her testimony led to the passage of the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which was signed into law in 2002.

In her treatise Children: Things We Throw Away? nurse Melanie Green not only describes witnessing the death of a child who survived a saline solution abortion but also points out that this is a common practice: 
I’m a housewife and a registered nurse from Jacksonville. I worked the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift, and when we weren’t busy, I’d go out to help with the newborns. One night I saw a bassinet outside the nursery. There was a baby in this bassinet – a crying, perfectly formed baby – but there was a difference in this child. She had been scalded. She was the child of a saline abortion. This little girl looked as if she had been put in a pot of boiling water. No doctor, no nurse, no parent, to comfort this hurt, burned child. She was left alone to die in pain. They wouldn’t let her in the nursery – they didn’t even bother to cover her. I was ashamed of my profession that night! It’s hard to believe this can happen in our modern hospitals, but it does. It happens all the time. I thought a hospital was a place to heal the sick – not a place to kill. I asked a nurse at another hospital what they do with their babies that are aborted by saline. Unlike my hospital, where the baby was left alone struggling for breath, their hospital puts the infant in a bucket and puts the lid on. Suffocation! Death by suffocation!
Abortion rights campaigners continue to claim that Gosnell was an isolated case, but there are multiple indications, such as the mentioned statements of Melanie Green, Jill Stanek, Karpen’s employees, Planned Parenthood and Dr. Emily’s assistant, among many others, that the gosnelling of newborn children is a common method of dealing with failed abortion attempts, in some cases even against the wishes of the mother.

The liberal media generally ignore these cases, and not just because these stories turn the stomach of every sensible person, be they pro-life or pro-abortion. These stories cast an undesired light on the reality of the abortion industry and may cause the undecided to oppose abortion and the pro-abortionists to waver in their beliefs. A legal procedure and a first-degree murder are in close proximity. A newborn child is no different than the fetus they were just a few minutes prior to birth, and this may raise a very unsettling question: if they are the same, is the newborn child still a tissue blob? Or is the fetus already a human being?


Ron Cole said...

We also need to ask what percent of pro-abortion people 'claim' to be opposed to killing newborns but secretly really don't mind at all.

Mindyurbiz said...

How, how, how does this go on?! Forgive me, I am just stunned speechless. My soul hurts.

Coyote said...

This is a good article. Nice job, Frank!

I strongly agree with you that *painless elective* infanticide (at least in certain hypothetical cases) needs to be brought up when politically anti-abortion people are discussing/debating when legal personhood should begin with pro-choicers. Also, it is a scientific fact that a new life begins at conception/fertilization.

Also, I hate to say it, but I don't think that the answer to the question of whether or not human infants should have legal personhood is completely black and white. I say Yes (and I say Yes for prenatal human beings as well) out of caution, but if someone is more of a "risk-taker," then he/she could say No.

Coyote said...

I know a couple of politically pro-choice people who support painless elective infanticide in certain cases.

Ron Cole said...

How does it still shock me? Probably because I allow myself to occasionally believe that we live in a sane world and each time I hear something like this, I'm violently yanked back out of that comfort zone. :(

Coyote said...

I think that one can make a case that my friends' position in regards to this is sane. I don't agree with their position, but I can't state with 100% confidence that their position has no merits.

JDC said...

Great article! There really needs to be more awareness about this issue.

Faye Valentine said...

^That's being so open-minded your brain falls out.

Coyote said...

Not at all. If one does not support speceisism, then one can easily make a valid case in favour of denying legal personhood to infants.

If you want extreme open-mindedness, then this would perhaps be more along the lines of someone saying that nuking individuals purely for the fun of doing it is a perfectly valid position to have.

Crystal Kupper said...

Stories like these only strengthen my conviction to someday adopt.

Sally said...

If a child is so underdeveloped and suffering from the effects of saline (which isn't typically used any more in abortions) that it is unlikely to survive, then a quick death is the kindest thing the doctor can do for it.

Mreen said...

So, if someone is on an accident, or their parents try to kill them, and as a result they are unlikely to survive and in a lot of pain, should the doctors try to save them to the last of their options, or should they do the kind thing and provide them a quick death???

Also, it is obvious that if the baby survives the abortion and can keep struggling for hours or days without even basic care, it can have a hell of a good chance to survive.

Perry said...

There is no doubt! All killing of the innocents is MURDER in the first degree!!

Sally said...

Depends on the situation. If the person had no realistic chance of recovering to a point where they will have any quality of life, then yes, a quick death is preferable. That's certainly what I'd want to happen to me.

Struggling through a few hours doesn't mean that a premature baby will ever be able to walk, talk, think, or experience anything other than pain. The doctor is the person best qualified to decide whether treatment is appropriate.

I'd also be interested to know how many severely disabled children you've adopted?

Faye Valentine said...

"Not at all. If one does not support speceisism, then one can easily make a valid case in favour of denying legal personhood to infants...."

And that's why NOT being speciest is, at least in my mind, almost synonymous with being a sociopath. No empathy whatsoever for those of your same species, otherwise known as human beings, which is kind of the definition of a sociopath.

Faye Valentine said...

So you would want other people making the decision of whether or not someone's "quality of life" entitled them to continue living it? Do you apply that to yourself as well, or is this scenario only fit for those dirty little "unwanted children"?

Sally said...

I've already said that I would want a doctor to take the decision to end my life if I wasn't able to express a preferencemyself and was unlikely to recover.

Mreen said...

The value of a person is not only limited to what they can or can not do. Human live is valuable in all its forms, being severely disabled doesn't make you any less human than being a normal adult, or a foetus, or a sick elderly person.

About decisions: medical staff should not have a say in the matter of who should be left to die based over a supposed future quality of life. Many people is condemned and told that they are going to be bedridden and with a very poor quality of life for the rest of their lives and they end up having an almost normal live, also, you don't know if what doctors deem under acceptable a patient would be glad to have... Maybe you would like to be provided a quick death in case of disability, but A LOT of people would like to continue living and doesn't have a death wish because of it, even if they are severely dependant for the rest of their lives, it's no one else's decision to make.

And talking specifically about babes, it's been demonstrated that they have better chances to recover form traumatic events with notorious speed and surprisingly much better results than an adult would, in fact, many times they can make an incredible recovery and, if not live a normal life, then a very good life. That maybe they can't make it that well doesn't give us the right to take away their lives, life is hard for every one, for some more than others, but that's not reason to say that the less favoured would be better dead.

Regarding your last comment: imagine slavery is still legal, so, because I am in no position to provide food, clothing, housing, health care,
jobs, etc. for them if they are freed, I can't have an opinion on the
matter of their freedom and their right to live???

Mreen said...

The problem is, that's YOU, not every one else.

Mreen said...

My main language is not English, so I'm not totally sure about what
exactly "personhood" refers to, but to me is as simple as that a human
being is a human being, there is no way of denying that, hence, being
human, a born baby or pre-born baby has the same Human Rights that
anyone else, and the first Right is the Right to live! Trying to deny
that has no merit, it is simply matter of finding excuses to continue
murdering (the most innocent) people.

Sally said...

Ask a personal question such as "do you apply this to yourself" and you'll get a personal answer.

Sally said...

Ours got nothing to do with value and everything to do with what is medically possible. If a child is unlikely to ever make it out of the hospital (most babies born before 24 weeks don't) then prolonging is life is pointless.

Ideally with an adult in this situation, they would have made their wishes clear before the accident, our at least the family could take a guess at what they would have wanted. It's not appropriate to involve the parents who tried to abort a child in decisions about it's care, and the child is not mentally capable of holding an opinion, so decisions about whats in its best interests have to be taken by the doctor.

Why do anti-abortionists always bring up the fight against slavery? You're the ones campaigning to bring it back!

Mreen said...

You are leaving the rest of this conversation a side, you are implying that what you want is what should be applied to everyone else, that is what I mean when I say that that's YOUR choice, no one else should be affected by it.

Sally said...

No,I was responding to a direct question about what I would want to happen to me. Personally, I don't think the question was very relevant.

Mreen said...

Of course it has to do with value! why not kill the already bedridden or the already sick and dying, then??, even if they don't agree, after all, they don't have a "good" quality of life or they are going to die soon and cannot be saved, why not kill them already if it is medically sure that they are going to die if value has nothing to do with it??

Also you seem to omit the paragraphs about how so many people overcomes a damning diagnosis and the one below about the astonishing possibilities of babes nowadays.

About the 24 week thing, you say then, that because most babes under 24 weeks doesn't make it, we should not try and give them an opportunity to them all??, Some would make it, some not, you are cutting those who would from living.

Next. A doctor doesn't know the future, even if they think they can "predict" what is to come, I refer you again to my previous comment on how so many people recover from condemning diagnostics, and the other just below referring of the good chances of babes those days; if a babe survives for hours or days without even warmth or food after being victims of attempted murder, if they were helped I bet you that most of them would make it, but because only a few are sadly going to die we can not think it's better to kill them all.

Again, regarding to your last comment, be sure I am against slavery as I am against murder (most of all of innocent babes) But to the real question here: please amuse me and omit that the question is about slavery, what do you have to say then??

Mreen said...

A direct question that has a first question before it...:

"So you would want other people making the decision of whether or not someone's "quality of life" entitled them to continue living it?"


...and that comes from your previous comments:

"If a child is so underdeveloped and suffering from the effects of saline
(which isn't typically used any more in abortions) that it is unlikely to survive, then a quick death is the kindest thing the doctor can do for it."

Struggling through a few hours doesn't mean that a premature baby will ever be able to walk, talk, think, or experience anything other
than pain. The doctor is the person best qualified to decide whether treatment is appropriate."

So, or you centre your answer in your personal opinion and disregard completely the rest of the conversation thus avoiding to answer the real thing, or you think your personal opinion should be adequate for everyone else, I though it was the later, hence my input.

Sally said...

You support allowing person A (the fetus) to use the body of person B (its mother) for the benefit of person A, againsy thr will of person B. You are pro-slavery. You could argue that slavery is justified in this case to save lives, but you cannot factually say you are against it.

If a sick person can express a preference, that preference should determine their care. Otherwise, in the absence of any family, the doctor is the only person who can decide what is best. I don't see what your obsession is with keeping people alive to experience nothing but suffering just becausein one in every few thousand cases a miracle might occur. The world that pro-lifers would create is filled with plenty of life, but even more suffering.

Coyote said...

I'm not sure that the comparison with slavery is a valid one here. After all, unlike with slaves, the overwhelming majority of pregnant women had the choice not to risk getting pregnant in the first place (as a side note, I support a rape exception for abortion). Also, if pregnancy is considered slavery, can't one say the same thing about a woman being forced to breastfeed her starving baby on a desert island in order for this baby of hers to survive? Also, can't one compare slavery to people being forced to pay child support? After all, with child support, one needs to work for a particular amount for someone else's benefit, and most people simply cannot permanently avoid working since their savings will eventually run out.

Coyote said...

First of all, these individuals do understand the feelings of others (with is the definition of empathy). Secondly, these individuals don't have a lack of conscience--their views of what is right and wrong are simply different from your views on this. Third, these individuals are not anti-social. So No, they are not sociopaths and they are not anything close to being sociopaths. Frankly, I think that you might be guilty of the appeal to ridicule fallacy and/or the guilt by association fallacy. Saying that someone is or appears to be a sociopath due to a particular position of his/hers does not make their position on this issue any less valid. Also, in case I did not make myself clear on this earlier, I am *against* elective infanticide, but I do see where individuals on the other side of the issue are coming from *in certain cases.* However, I am staunchly against speceisism. I don't see why one should be treated any differently purely due to his/her/its species, just like I don't see why one should be treated any differently purely due to his/her/its race, ethnicity, gender, religion, eye colour, hair colour, et cetera. Throughout the years, many of my ancestors and relatives have endured a large amount of discrimination and genocide due to individuals of different races/ethnicities/religions giving them worse treatment than they gave individuals of other races/ethnicities/religions. I am not interested in seeing a repeat of what my family endured over the years in any degree in the future.

Coyote said...

It's a nice position to think that all human beings should simply be given rights, but then one needs to ask--what about non-human animals with greater or equal intelligence to some human beings? Should they be given rights as well? This is where the debate is. Also, "person" means that an individual/entity/organism should be given rights.

If you don't mind me asking, what is your first language?

Alden Smith said...

I really hope the Koch brothers can buy all of those papers up and start countering the liberal media. Fox News is the five rated TV station and the number one in news in the country

Mreen said...

The real thing here is, that that people is not seeking to approve animal rights, they are downgrading human live and using animals as an excuse to kill. I am the first to say that animals should have more protection (and I won't discus here to what extent or any more on the matter since this is not the place for it), but I certainly don't use the fact that they don't have it to disregard human live and make right the killing of babes, disabled or not.

In your last comment to the other commentator you say that these people understand the feelings of others and they know from wrong and right, only their view about it is different...

They certainly don't understand or don't care for the feeling of the people they are disregarding and killing, if not, they would expend some time with disabled children and their families and asking them how they feel and what would they want. Not everyone would answer the same, but A LOT if not a vast majority of disabled people would tell you that they are content with being alive and the families more than happy with their disabled children in their lives, even if it is not easy. It's a very paternalist attitude to think that they know better and go and rob others of their opportunity to live because they though it was better for them.

And certain things of right and wrong are simply NOT to be inside that "depends of the circumstances/person" Murder, rape, human trafficking, child or espousal abuse, etc. are NEVER right or acceptable under ANY circumstance.

I don't mind at all. My first language is Spanish.

Mreen said...

How easy and comfortable to deem the consequences of one's actions as the responsibles of one's hardships in life instead of said actions!

It is ridiculous to compare pregnancy with slavery. A baby is a consequence of two people having sex, it has no responsibility for anything since it didn't ask to be conceived in the first place or in that particular woman's body (as would a slaver that purposely would go and buy slaves and even chose between them and keep them subjugated for the rest of their lives). The aborting woman had sex willingly 99% of the time. It is incredibly twisted to blame the resulting child of said actions for its own conception and what it entails. Even if you use anti-conception, there is still a possibility of a baby being conceived, and not even in this case the baby is at fault: There is an action and there is the consequence of that action, even if measures were taken to prevent it, there was still a chance for that consequence to happen. Life works like that. Trying to blame others for one's actions is immature.

If an adult patient can't express their wishes they should be treated as if they wanted to live until they or their family could have a said on the matter if there is no previous notification of the contrary (a No Resurrect card or a new card where your wishes would be registered).

But we are talking about babes here. As a babe can't express its wishes and the aborting parents are in no position to decide over its life, the baby should be always treated to the last resource, by killing them you are extinguishing all their chances. You can object that there is only a case among thousands of those "miracle recovery", but concretely talking about abortion-survivor persons (that is the root of this conversation) only in the States are around 44.000 known cases... that's the KNOWN cases, and not even considering those thousands and thousands that weren't given a chance because someone though that they would be better dead. How many people like that is around the world?, how many have been killed?, Are all their lives disregardable because they are not majority??

johno said...

Dr. Gosnell is not the only one for sure. 6801 Lancaster "House of Horrors" is going on elsewhere. We, as a society bury our heads in the sand. Fetus feet in jars, "snipping", the death of Ms. Mongar. This all has to end! Yes, Dr. Gosnell is in jail but what about the others that make lots of money of this.

Susan C. Lalumiere said...

Maybe you should look up Gianna Jessen. She survived a saline abortion, and wasn't going to be able to walk or talk according to doctors, but does that and much more.

Mreen said...

We expect people to be ACCOUNTABLE for their actions (as in any other aspect of life), you don't have to abstain, but you HAVE to be responsible since it is an act you are choosing to do by yourself knowing the consequences it might entail... So, are you saying people should be able to avoid any responsibility they don't want, just because they just don't want them? (about abortion and the child support issue you present)

Coyote said...

"How are you planning to make that work? If you force women to go through the courts before being allowed an abortion, it will be too late (or at the very least, late abortion rates will go up)."

I think that proving statutory rape will be pretty easy. In regards to de facto rape, unfortunately, I'm not sure if there is any other way except to have these women go through the courts. Sure, it might be too late for some women to get abortions as a result of this, but I'm not sure if there is any other way in order to prevent fraud in regards to this. That said, if a woman proves that she was raped (via the courts, et cetera) after the deadline for her getting an abortion has passed, I support having someone pay her compensation in regards to her being forced to give birth.

"If you only require a report to the police, false rape accusations are going to skyrocket."


"I do not agree with forced child support payments. The parent should be allowed to give their child up to the other parent, similar to what happens in adoption."

I'm very glad that you have this position. I certainly respect pro-choice positions which support giving males at least some sort/kind of opt-out from paying child support.

"You expect people to choose to abstain for 30+ years? That's not a normal life."

No, I am not expecting people to do anything. I am expecting people to make their own decisions and then to be held responsible for the consequences of these decisions of others. They can certainly abstain, they can certainly have sex with fertile individuals of the opposite gender, and/or they can certainly have sex with infertile individuals of the opposite gender and/or with fertile individuals of the same gender. I read that female sexuality is (at least often) pretty fluid, so perhaps more women should have (more) lesbian sex if they want to in the event of a ban on most abortions. However, I do want to point out that people can certainly have a great life while still abstaining from sex for decades or even for their entire lives, considering that there are things such as masturbation, sex toys, sex dolls, et cetera. I can and do abstain from sex due to the current laws in regards to abortion and child support and due to my current gender, and thus, since I can do it, other people can abstain as well if they have the will to do it. Abstaining and not abstaining from sex are both choices/decisions which individuals can make in either direction, unlike with slavery, where the slaves did not get a choice/decision at all in regards to whether or not they want to become slaves. Again, I support having people make their own decisions in regards to this, and honestly, all of these decisions which I mentioned are decent options. However, I also support forcing people to be responsible for their own actions and decisions, and frankly, it honestly shocks me that personal responsibility is such a "dirty" and bad concept and idea to some people.

Coyote said...

I completely agree with you here.