Lila Rose’s Live Action Network has taped abortionists admitting they would not save babies who survive abortion. (After birth, whether wanted or not, the baby is no longer a “fetus.”
Here’s a quote from a tape posted last year in which the abortionist says, while no babies have survived his deadly intervention, if one did, he will do nothing to help a prematurely born baby survive-for example, if the mother delivers from the uterus dilating drugs before getting to “the termination part of the procedure:”
I sever the umbilical cord first. We try and wait [to remove the fetus] until it stops pulsing…
Legally we would be obligated to help it to, you know survive. It probably, you know, wouldn’t. It’s all in how vigorously you do things to help a fetus survive at this point…
If you do everything possible to help it survive, you know, there is a 20-30 percent it would survive. If you don’t do anything, you know chances are much less lax…
There are things you can do [to make sure the baby doesn’t survive]. We would not help it. We wouldn’t intubate…We wouldn’t do anything extra. It would be a terminal person in the hospital who has cancer. You wouldn’t do anything extra to help the person survive. We would do the same thing here.
Of course, at 23-25 weeks, the baby wouldn’t be terminally ill but savable with proper medical care. This is worse than when a desperate teenager throws an unwanted baby in the toilet or the trash. This is a premeditated plan of deadly neglect. Sickening.
Question: How is treating unwanted newborns who survive abortion any different than racially or religiously inspired deadly violence or lethal neglect?
Check out the Live Action Network Website. This does not appear to be an isolated example.
LifeNews.com Note: Wesley J. Smith, J.D., is a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture and a bioethics attorney who blogs at Human Exeptionalism.