Writer Argues Abortion is a Good Thing Because It Prevents Infanticide

State   Sarah Zagorski   Feb 25, 2015   |   10:36AM    Washington, DC

In a new article on Lancaster Online, writer Liliane Stern argues that abortion is good for society because it prevents infanticide.

She writes, “In the United States, the infanticide rate during the first hour of life dropped from 1.41 per 100,000 from 1963 to 1972 to 0.44 per 100,000 for 1974 to 1983; the rates during the first month of life also declined, whereas those for older infants rose during this time.”

Then Stern cites a study by economists with the National Bureau of Economic Research, which claims that abortion was the most important factor in the decline of neonatal mortality during the period from 1964 to 1977.

She continues, “Screening for psychiatric disorders or risk factors, and providing treatment or assistance to those at risk, may help prevent infanticide. However, in the developed world, significant proportions of neonaticides that are detected occur in young women who deny their pregnancy and avoid outside contacts so they may have limited contact with health care services. In some areas, baby hatches — safe places for a mother to anonymously leave an infant — are offered, in part to reduce the rate of infanticide. In other places, safe-haven laws allow mothers to anonymously give infants to designated officials. Typically such babies are put up for adoption or cared for in orphanages. Unfortunately, many mothers fear being identified.”

CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!

 

She concludes with this question: “Is it not better to make safe, legal, first-trimester abortions easily available than to have unwanted infants and children tortured, abused and killed, as happens much too often in the U.S.?”

Unfortunately, the twisted ideology that is revealed in Stern’s question is surfacing more and more because we live in a world that believes if a person is destined to suffer, they should die. Many say, “We would not want to bring a child into the world only to see her suffer, terminating would be a kind, even humane act.”

babyshoes2

However, if Stern’s logic were applied millions of people wouldn’t be here today simply because they would face suffering. Why? Because in reality, Stern is saying that children who are being abused; children born with disabilities; and many children in our foster care system shouldn’t have been born.

Currently, in the United States there are over five million children being abused annually; and eight million children are born each year with some type of birth defect. I don’t know about you, but I don’t believe suffering should justify the genocide of millions of people; rather, it should motivate pro-lifers to push for social change.

Additionally, studies show that the acceptance of abortion has lead to infanticide.

As LifeNews previously reported, in the Journal of Medical Ethics, ethicists argue that parents should have the right to kill their newborn infants because infants are not people. The authors prefer the term ‘after-birth abortion’ as opposed to ‘infanticide’ because the term after-birth abortion emphasizes ‘that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable to that of a fetus . . . rather than to that of a child.’

Here’s an important question we should ask ourselves: if an unborn child’s right to life can be denied based on criteria like the existence of suffering or simply the wishes of the mother, then what’s to stop similar criteria from nullifying the right to life for the elderly, the disabled, or even the very young?