According to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, a 25-year-old Irish woman has been charged with hiding the body of her newborn while traveling across a remote part of Western Australia.
The law requires all births to be reported, even if the baby has died of natural causes. The woman had been travelling through the Kimberley region with friends and had not realized she had fallen pregnant, police said.
She gave birth one night in May, while at home alone in the town of Halls Creek. The case only recently came to light after the woman appeared in court. It will be alleged that she hid the newborn and did not tell her friends what had happened for several days.
When they found out, she was taken to hospital, where staff notified police. WA’s Major Crime Squad was called in to investigate the infant’s death and charged the Irishwoman with concealing the birth.
She appeared in court in Kununurra at the end of last month, when the case was referred to Perth, and she is due back in court later this year.
The charge carries a maximum penalty of two years in jail. It is understood the woman has had to remain in Perth while the court case proceeds.”
The President of the WA Criminal Lawyers Association, Linda Black, said “Without wanting to trivialize it, we just can’t have people storing dead bodies all over the place without it being brought to the attention of the authorities and dealt with in a proper and formal way. Most countries around the world had a law requiring births to be reported, no matter what the circumstances.”
She added, “It’s a charge that’s certainly not unique to Western Australia.”
“[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be.
Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.”
These bioethicists do not see a difference between babies at six months fetal age, at the top of the birth canal, or already delivered. While this horrifies most Americans, we should remember that America isn’t too far behind this ideology. From abortionists like Kermit Gosnell killing babies born alive, to “doctors” like Warren Hern in Colorado opposing restrictions on late abortion, we are dangerously close to accepting the radical beliefs of pro-infanticide bioethicists.