The Right Opinion

The Left's War on Babies

By L. Brent Bozell · Mar. 7, 2012

In the wake of the Obama administration dictate that private insurance companies cover contraceptives and abortifacients, supporters have defined anyone who would oppose this mandate as waging a “war against women.” Obviously, no opponent of this policy is actually bombing, shooting or stabbing women to death.

The same cannot be said for what the cultural left favors – a war against babies. The latest front of “advanced” leftist medical ethics has emerged from the experts at Oxford University. They don’t just favor abortion, even partial-birth abortion. They favor “after-birth abortion.”

It is stomach-turning stuff. Killing babies is no different than abortion, these academics argued in the Journal of Medical Ethics. Ironically, pro-lifers would agree and have long pointed to this logical progression in the face of laughter. The “ethicists” now explain it somewhat differently. Parents should be allowed to kill their newborn babies because they’re still “morally irrelevant.”

The article carries the chilling title “After-Birth abortion: Why should the baby live?” Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva argue newborn babies aren’t “actual persons” but “potential persons.”

How this qualifies as “science” or “ethics” is anyone’s guess. It qualifies as a quintessential example of the culture of death. Giubilini also gave a talk at Oxford in January titled “What is the problem with euthanasia?”

Team Oxford argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense.” They explained that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

These “ethicists” also argued that parents are somehow cheated when only “64 percent of Down syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing. Once such children were born, there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child,” they complained.

All this should cause us to return to what Rick Santorum was trying to say – and our pro-abortion media could only scorn as politically disastrous – about amniocentesis being used as a death panel. The Santorum family’s decision to have a disabled child – as well as the Palin family’s decision – have been disdained by the liberal media as freakishly weird, dangerously religious. It’s an “alternative lifestyle” that the “compassionate” liberals cannot comprehend.

The same people who casually spew about a “war on women” have no time to discuss the “termination” of most pregnancies when disabilities like Down Syndrome are discovered. These people argue capital punishment is wrong because an innocent life may be taken. But they have no moral qualms about “parents” slaughtering their innocent but somehow subhuman babies that don’t pass prenatal tests for normalcy.

They have yet to speak about post-natal death sentences.

The same people who wouldn’t countenance talk of a “war on babies” expect the national media to continue their near-total blackout of Barack Obama’s record advocating against a Born-Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois in 2001, 2002 and 2003. This article out of England ought to spur reporters to ask Obama about “after-birth abortion” as a 2012 campaign issue.

How could the president who led the effort to prohibit the care of infants surviving abortion oppose those who would want to kill them a minute after birth?

There was a terrific pro-life speech delivered a month ago before the Susan B. Anthony Fund by Sen. Marco Rubio, who addressed the same “viability” argument on a moral slippery slope. To the argument that the fetus is not viable without the support of the mother, he answered, “a newborn isn’t viable without the mother, either. A 1-year-old child, a 2-year-old child – leave a 2-year-old child by himself, leave a 6-month-old child by himself, they are not viable either.”

This is why Rubio declared, “The issue of life is not a political issue, nor is it a policy issue. It is a definitional issue. It is a basic core issue that every society needs to answer. The answer that you give to that issue ends up defining which kind of society you have.” You can have a society defined by sexual libertinism and abortion for convenience – or you can respect a right to life.

Rubio drew a standing ovation for concluding with this:

“There is nothing that America can give this world right now more important than to show that all life – irrespective of the circumstances of its creation, irrespective of the circumstances of its birth, irrespective of the conditions of that they find themselves in – all life, in a planet where life is increasingly not valued, in a planet where people are summarily discarded, all life is worthy of protection. All life enjoys God’s love.”

But somehow, the left and their media allies define Rubio’s view as a “war on women” – no matter how many female babies are discarded as medical waste.



Ski said:

For those wanting help on how to respectfully refute any pro-abortion argument I would reccomend:Greg Kouk's Stand to Reason website..., consise, and easily remembered.

Wednesday, March 7, 2012 at 8:46 AM

wjm in Colorado said:

Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva are "morally irrelevant." I would also put them in league with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and other mass murderers, as they subscribe to the same philosophy. Marxist Statist ilk are such reprehensible folk. More monster than human in their thinking.

Wednesday, March 7, 2012 at 10:21 AM

P. Long in Texas said:

A war on babies. Yes. And they've been winning. They are killers. Pure and simple. Worse than Pol Pot ever was. Infanticide. A blot on this country or any other that indulges such horrid practices.

Wednesday, March 7, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Brenda said:

As a pro-choice woman seeking a political middle ground on this topic, I believe that early-term (1st trimester) abortions should be a legal option for women who have determined that they cannot physically, emotionally or mentally withstand a pregnancy. In the second or third trimester, abortions should only be performed if the mother is in jeopardy of losing her life. And of course no post birth abortions (which used to be a common practice, but medical technology allows for viability that did not exist back then).We are getting nowhere demonizing each other and making hyberbolic accusations of war and slippery slope arguments. When will we start listening to each other and compromising?

Wednesday, March 7, 2012 at 9:47 PM

mikeEcho said:

Marco Rubio is right on! The left's thinking is beyond my understanding, it just does not compute.This assault on inocent life is just the begining if not nipped in the bud. Read about other peoples and civilizations throughout history and you will discover this is a common thread which ends in their moral depravity and ultimate ruin. God help us here in America. This is more than a political battle, it is a moral and spiritual fight that we must win for the sake of our posterity.

Wednesday, March 7, 2012 at 11:58 PM

rippedchef in sc said:

Brenda I'm afraid it's women like yourself which are the problem-"emotionally" unable to have a child but "emotionally" able to have sex??How's this for ya-PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.Victims of rape or incest-I can see that-any other excuse is exactly that-an excuse for irresponsible behavior.We as a society constantly protect citizens from the consequences of their own poor decisions,thereby insulating them from the harsh and painful results.Why not have sex if young women can abort it or even have the child and get paid for it??How many young women would be having unprotected sex out of the confines of marriage if there was no easy abortion and not a nickel of support??Lastly your "definition" of when life begins or is relevant is the main reason we have digressed to where we are today with the academic garbage espoused by those two morons from Oxford

Thursday, March 8, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Brenda said:

Rippedchef, I disagree that it's people like me, seeking compromise, attempting to reach out to the other side, that are the problem. I expressly stated that I did not agree with the Oxford professors in the article, which by the way is a gross misrepresentation of where the majority of pro-lifers stand on the issue.And yes, some women are emotionally unable to withstand a pregnancy, often the same women who lack the emotional stability to say no when they should. You can't wear blinders to the fact that so many women in this country suffer from extreme poverty, abuse, addiction, mental illness, not all of which are circumstances they were able to control. People make bad choices every day, but that doesn't mean they should be cast aside and offered no chance at pulling themselves out of a bad situations. Your logic equates to nothing more than casting the first stone, again, and again, and again.

Thursday, March 8, 2012 at 2:23 PM

rippedchef in sc said:

Brenda,again as I stated,your solution will only generate more poor choices.Regardless of circumstance we are all responsible for our actions.Besides mental illness,which should be dealt with in other ways,what you list are excuses for poor decisions,none of which make it OK to behave irresponsibly.While your intentions may be noble,they are misplaced and run counter to freedom and liberty.Wihtout painful and drastic results,the cycle won't change.You might not like it,but freedom is ugly.Liberals like yourself who want life to be fair are doomed for failure,this country was founded on equality of opportunity not equality of results,the sooner you figure that out,the better

Thursday, March 8, 2012 at 6:17 PM

rippedchef in sc said:

brenda-funny how liberals and feminists want total equality(abolishing any type of gender roles),want to be the "same" as men,insist that women can do anything a man can do,how is it all of a sudden they are too weak to handle the results of their freedom with respect to pregnancy?Is it I'm woman hear me roar or hear me squeak??Sounds like you want it both ways to me

Thursday, March 8, 2012 at 6:23 PM

R said:


Thursday, March 8, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Brenda said:

I would like to address your responses point by point. I truly want to engage in civil discourse, but you have made several absurd assumptions and generalizations. 1. Poor choices will always happen, and lousy luck will always happen. Punishing everyone who gets caught in a bad situation is not going to fix anything. You could spend the same money and provide a means to improve lousy circumstances, and society as a whole is better off. 2. This country was founded on equal opportunity for rich white guys, not everybody. We have progressed a long way, but we aren't there yet. Freedom and liberty aren't compromised by providing more assistance to those who need it. 3. I never said I wanted to abolish gender roles. I like being a woman. And I have endured two difficult high risk pregnancies with minimal squeaking. But in what universe is pregnancy a byproduct of freedom?Oppressed people can easily achieve that condition, too.

Thursday, March 8, 2012 at 9:50 PM

rippedchef in sc said:

brenda,1.since when do you get to decide what "better off" means-typical left wing self-righteousness.Some poor choices will always happen,point is to lessen that,not condone thereby generating was founded on equality of opportunity not equality of results-when will any progressive actually come to terms with that??3.You wanting to force me to pay for another citizens poor choices and resulting negative results infringes on MY FREEDOM.Again,when will one single liberal get it-freedom cuts both ways.Most if not all liberals refuse to grant to others the same freedom and liberty they claim to hold so dear.There is no compromise-it's fliege scheisse oder fleige salat to quote a famous Austrian chef

Monday, March 12, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Karen said:

To rippedchef:While I agreed with most of your comments, I do not agree that abortion should be permissible in the cases of rape or incest. Children who are conceived under those horrific circumstances are nevertheless human, and thus, deserving of life.Ending the life of the innocent child will do nothing to minimize the pain of the woman who was violated, and will only add a second victim to the original crime of rape. Abortion is wrong because it destroys an innocent human life. A better solution would be to place the child for adoption.

Wednesday, March 14, 2012 at 11:37 AM