After-Birth “Abortion”: We encounter people who think
it is morally acceptable to kill babies after birth
on a regular basis at almost every campus we visit
We Are In The Middle Of A Tsunami Of Physician-Hastened Termination—Goodness Has Nothing To Do With It, Don’t Call It “Euthanasia”
I watch the people’s faces coming out of Mass, the time when their lives are most affected by our Blessed Lord’s earthly mission. Sometimes my notice is caught by a heavenly glow on the faces of mothers with many children. Little children are innocently preoccupied by more immediate emotions. But most arresting are the looks of young people, often ranging between wistfulness and angst.
Youth are faced with some of the most serious business of life, finding their future course in the midst of conflicting feelings and discordant noise from the world. Young people seeking guidance often meet with de facto apathy from those who could help them. But some of those most actively seeking to influence young people have an actual malicious intent.
A woman wrote to Archbishop Fulton Sheen about her brother, saying that he was dying in a hospital and that he had been away from the sacraments for about 30 years. She said that he had not only lived a bad life, but that he was an evil man. (There’s a difference between being bad and being evil. A bad man steals; a bad man kills. An evil man may do none of those things. But he seeks to destroy goodness in others.) This woman’s brother was an evil man, as he did much to corrupt youth by circulating pamphlets among them that contained evil messages in order to destroy both faith and morals. —Homily, June 24, 2012, Assumption Parish, Dwight NE
One of these who have chosen evil, is Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer. The extremism of his view, that young children can be “aborted” until they are several years of age, might be dismissed as ivory tower ravings–except that the views he spearheaded are now becoming common.
(Click Open) THERE EXISTS IN CONTEMPORARY CULTURE a certain Promethean attitude which leads people to think that they can control life and death by taking the decisions about them into their own hands.… Pope John-Paul II, —Evangelium Vitae §15
“A trend seen by prolife activists that frequently engage college students on campuses nationwide is the growing acceptance of post-birth abortion, or killing the infant after he or she is born, campus prolife outreach leaders tell The College Fix.
“Anecdotal evidence by leaders of prolife groups such as Created Equal and Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust said in interviews that not only do they see more college students willing to say they support post-birth abortion, but some students even suggest children up to 4 or 5-years-old can also be killed, because they are not yet ‘self aware.’
“We encounter people who think it is morally acceptable to kill babies after birth on a regular basis at almost every campus we visit,” said Mark Harrington, director of Created Equal. “While this viewpoint is still seen as shocking by most people, it is becoming increasingly popular.”
—More college students support post-birth abortion by Mairead McArdle, Thomas Aquinas College, October 29, 2014, thecollegefix.com/post/19896/
…What really happens in this case is that the individual is overcome and crushed by a death deprived of any prospect of meaning or hope. We see a tragic expression of all this in the spread of euthanasia-disguised and surreptitious, or practised openly and even legally. As well as for reasons of a misguided pity at the sight of the patient’s suffering, euthanasia is sometimes justified by the utilitarian motive of avoiding costs which bring no return and which weigh heavily on society. Thus it is proposed to eliminate malformed babies, the severely handicapped, the disabled, the elderly, especially when they are not self-sufficient, and the terminally ill. Pope John-Paul II, —Evangelium Vitae
Involuntary “euthanasia” needle poised over condemned person’s arm in The Giver movie
In Lois Lowry’s Newberry Award winning, young people’s novel The Giver, progtagonist Jonas resolves his youthful lifecourse quest by squarely facing up his society’s so extreme opposition to the messiness of suffering that deliberate culling of problem people is routine and mandatory.
The depiction of Jonas’ rebellion for the cause of life is highly timely: It has been nearly 10 years since Terry Schiavo was unjustly put to death, but actually several decades since the inconvenient disabled became subject to involuntary killing.
And more than a century has transpired since Msgr. Robert Hugh Benson predicted the trends of these times, in his seminal, apocalyptic sci-fi The Lord of the World.
Julian Felsenburgh, “The Anti-Christ”
Robert Hugh Benson’s Lord of the World coming true before our eyes
Early in the book, a government volor [flyer], an airplane, has crashed in the middle of London and the protagonist, the young Catholic priest Fr. Percy Franklin, [who becomes Pope Silvester III, the last Pope], happened to be on the scene, though he was not yet known to Mabel, pretty wife of a rapidly-rising young Communist member of parliament and a devotee of the officially sanctioned state socialist atheism.
Mabel scarcely knew what happened next; but she found herself a moment later forced forward by some violent pressure from behind, til she stood shaking from head to foot with some kind of smashed body of a man moaning and stretching at her feet. There was a sort of articulate language coming from it; she caught distinctly the names of Jesus and Mary; then a voice hissed suddenly in her ears: “Let me through. I am a priest.”
She stood there a moment longer, dazed by the suddenness of the whole affair, and watched almost unintelligently the grey-haired young priest on his knees, with his coat torn open, and a crucifix out; she saw him bend close, wave his hand in a swift sign, and heard a murmur of a language she did not know. Then he was up again, holding the crucifix out before him, and she saw him begin to move forward into the midst of the red-flooded pavement, looking this way and that as if for a signal.
Down the steps of the great hospital on her right came figures running now, hatless, each carrying what looked like an old fashioned camera. She knew what those men were, and her heart leaped in relief. They were the ministers of euthanasia.
A FORMER EUTHANASIA SUPPORTER warned of a surge in deaths if the British Parliament allowed doctors to give deadly drugs to their patients. ‘Don’t do it Britain,’ said Theo Boer, a veteran European watchdog in assisted suicide cases. ‘Once the genie is out of the bottle, it is not likely ever to go back in again.’ dailymail.co.uk
Involuntary, physician-facilitated terminations have now gone mobile in the Netherlands. Coming soon to a family transition crisis near you.
More proof that more college students support post-birth abortion
A College Fix article that went viral last fall drew attention to an emerging inclination among young people: pro-life activists who engage college students on campuses across the country are seeing support for so-called “post-birth abortion,” or the killing of infants and young children.
It was a report so shocking, many did not want to believe it.
In response to the article – shared on social media nearly 50,000 times and sparking a national dialogue – Snopes.com attempted to debunk the claim by complaining the piece spun anecdotal evidence into a “study.” Students for Life also published a piece saying they did not think the trend was real.
However, the article explicitly stated its evidence is anecdotal, based on the many experiences of pro-life activists with Created Equal and Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, whose members show up at college campuses weekly and engage young people in serious conversations about abortion.
Although no official study or poll has been conducted on this issue, Mark Harrington, director of Created Equal, and Kristina Garza, director of campus outreach for Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, speak with college students about abortion on a regular basis and find that more young people than ever before are willing to admit they support post-birth abortion.
In response to those who questioned the experiences of these pro-life campus advocates, The College Fix returned to the groups’ leaders to get their take on the notion that it was all too outlandish to believe.
In recent interviews, they not only stood behind their assessment, but provided further details to their original claims to help prove it.
The groups use graphic images of aborted babies to spark debate and then hold respectful, one-on-one dialogues with students to change minds on college campuses. Because of this, the exchanges members engage in with students at universities are deeply personal and very real.
Anecdotal evidence piles up
Partial transcripts from conversations between Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust team members and college students in recent months reveal the mindset can be found in young people.
On Dec. 3, 2014, at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, Survivor team member Sam Riley talked with a student who said he supported the “choice of the intellectual human.”
He said that “an intellectual human is a 5-, 6- or 7-year-old. They don’t know anything until 5, 6 or 7 years old.” When asked whether it was permissible to kill 2, 3, and 4-year-olds, he said: “Yes, under that criteria, I guess it would be ok.”
On Oct. 15, 2014, at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, Calif., a student admitted to Survivor team member Josh Cummings that a fetus is a human fetus. When asked when it was okay to kill a defenseless human life, the student said, “many times.” Cummings then asked the student whether a mother could drown her 2-year-old in the bathtub if she couldn’t afford to take care of it. “Yes, absolutely,” the student responded.
On Dec. 10, 2014, at Pomona College in Claremont, Calif., Survivor team member Lizzy Riley talked to a student who called himself a “utilitarian.” He said that if abortion were legal in India then people would not be forced to kill or abandon their baby girls. The situation now, he said, makes it necessary to kill these girls.
On Oct. 13 and 14, 2014, at UC San Diego, Lizzy Riley talked to three or four people who exhibited this utilitarian mindset, saying they had no problem with killing a 1- or 2-month-old. They admitted this after being shown there is no substantial biological difference between a 7-month fetus and a 2-month-old.
“Students wouldn’t be able to articulate where they learned it, but the ideology is so ingrained in them that they don’t even question it,” Lizzy Riley told The College Fix. “Look at where the slippery slope leads. If you’re casually pro-choice, at some point, you’re going to have to defend killing children after birth.”
After The College Fix published its original article, titled “Trending: More college students support post-birth abortion,” InfoWars reporter Joe Biggs got a number of students at the University of Texas in Austin to sign a petition for “post-birth abortion” that would allow killing children up to five years old. His efforts were captured on video.
But long before Biggs posted his man-on-the-street campus poll, Created Equal posted a video showing in a shocking manner the mentality of some modern college students.
“If you kill a baby fetus, it’s the same thing as killing any old inanimate object,” one college student told Created Equal in a 2011 conversation captured on video. “Like a rock, a tree – whatever. It’s not self aware. So what’s the point of holding on to its life?”
When a Created Equal member asked this college student when a young person becomes self aware, he replied: “Um, I am not a scientist, I am not a doctor, but if I recall from taking classes and stuff like that, like after a certain amount of months and years like, after a child is growing, like they begin to understand. I think it’s somewhere around the time of like, speech.”
Trend or not, some students support infanticide
Garza, of Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, says her team often encounters this viewpoint on campuses.
“We talk with dozens of students a week, and one or two of those students say they think infants and toddlers are not persons,” Garza said.
Harrington, director of Created Equal, told The Fix in October that “we encounter people who think it is morally acceptable to kill babies after birth on a regular basis at almost every campus we visit. While this viewpoint is still seen as shocking by most people, it is becoming increasingly popular.”
In a more recent interview, Harrington responded to naysayers by pointing out that “our anecdotal evidence is more germane to the question of whether … abortion advocates are becoming more intellectually honest—that is to say, accepting of killing born children along with preborn (since there’s no relevant difference) in theory if not in practice.”
“Nobody is claiming that this ideology of accepting infanticide is the norm – far from it,” she said. “Students accepting the humanity of born children, but discrediting his or her value based on cognitive ability, is merely a trend.”
“I don’t think we can completely discredit anecdotal evidence,” she added. “They are one pole of the abortion debate spectrum, of which we see every facet by talking with hundreds of students at high schools, colleges and universities across the country every year.”
Infants born alive during botched abortions also contribute to the acceptance of killing newborns, Garza pointed out.
“It is difficult to refute that some percentage of late-term abortions fail, and end with the murder of a born-alive infant,” Garza said. “Hence, it would be fair to say that students who support late-term abortion, after admitting the humanity of the preborn child and knowing the failure rate, would also support infanticide.”
In the end, Harrington points out, “We could provide more anecdotes, but no amount of anecdotes will prove conclusively a general trend across all college students.”
Extreme views emerge
More people are taking a more extreme position on abortion rights.
For example, in 2013, students from the University of New Mexico were bussed to the Albuquerque polls to vote down the late-term abortion referendum that would have banned abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
And a fall 2013 philosophy syllabus from UC San Diego even includes a piece by Peter Singer, the moral philosopher who supported infanticide. Although most professors are not necessarily teaching that infanticide is acceptable, it is not clear that they are condemning it, either.
One student told Survivors that, a few years ago at one university in Southern California, a graduate school professor who taught “virtue ethics” once gave a lecture in which he used the case of Terri Schiavo to argue along the lines of: “If we could do it in her case (i.e. kill her), why can’t we do it with other people?”
Schiavo was a 26-year-old woman who inexplicably collapsed into a permanent vegetative state and was kept on life support for years before her feeding tube was removed and she died.
The scholar continued to say that he and his partner had a surprise baby, 2 years old at the time. He said, “I absolutely love my son, but I wouldn’t call him a person because he doesn’t have the reasoning capabilities, the personality that I would say is necessary for someone to be called a person.” During that class, none of the graduate students challenged him.
The good news
While more college students may support post-birth abortion, the number of students who accept that life beings at conception is also growing, and at a larger and faster rate than those who accept infanticide, Garza said.
“This trend of students saying they think babies are not ‘persons’ for whatever philosophical reason is actually just proof that we’re doing our job,” Garza said. “There is no logical way to disprove the humanity of the child before birth. The next logical step for the … pro-abortion supporter would be to argue that the child may be a human being, but circumstances warrant it ok to kill the child anyway.”
Garza said this trend is not disheartening.
“Pro-life leaders from many organizations have been saying for a few years now that we need to push students out of the mushy middle and force them to choose a side,” she said. “Some are going to choose the ugly extreme for abortion and infanticide. However, most are … going to choose to be 100 percent against abortion, which is the trend that we are also seeing on high school and college campuses all over California.”
According to Gallop, 33 percent of Americans were pro-life in 1996. Today, 46 percent say they are pro-life.