The New Hampshire House voted to ban partial birth abortion today (HB 1679). For those unfamiliar, Partial birth abortion is exactly what the term infers. The baby is partially born before its abortionist-induced termination. What this actually is, is abortion at birth, and if it was done without consent, even liberals would call it murder. But for the left, and more than a few very confused people on the near-right, the thinking here is that the child is not yet a person, a definition which is irrelevant if that same child is wanted by the mother, and an execution when preformed by the government on any other “person” against their will. Something future babies may yet have to contend with.
Surviving birth is no longer, necessarily, the last opportunity for an abortion. A pair of Oxford “ethicists,” who clearly would not object to partial birth abortion, recently arrived at the conclusion that infants are not people either.
Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva say in their study, titled After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? that babies, like fetuses, are only “potential persons” with no “moral right to life.” They define a person as one who is “capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value.” They conclude that parents should be able to kill infants because “the interests of actual people override the interest of merely potential people.”
Is that not chilling?
Is it not equally obvious how you get to this point. You must first refuse to acknowledge that an unborn baby is a life or even a person. You have to convince people that a baby is not a person, not at conception, nor at any point to term, including at birth, and now after?
The abortion industry and the progressives have been trying to make that case for forty years, and spent hundreds of millions to make the point stick. And now we’ve apparently arrived at a time and place where it is reasonable to suggest that babies are not people either. And people who claim to be very smart–and more than a few who are very stupid (with sheep like qualities) are defending this argument if not the conclusion.
So how many years will it be from today when government boards are empowered to define the value of whomever they choose, regardless of age? How about 2014 when Obama Care comes into force and health care begins its inevitable walk toward a time when health and life are apportioned based on the governments perceived value of the cost to government in relation to your current or future usefulness?
Revisit the words of the Oxford ethicists: :The interests of actual people (healthy people?) override the interests of merely potential people–or do they mean people with no future potential?
I can see some of you shaking your heads, thinking… no, that would never happen; we would never let it go that far? Really?
Last week I asked if anyone would have believed you, had you told them that the “right to privacy”–established in 1965 in Griswold vs. Connecticut,–would inevitably lead to the legal killing of babies at birth?” You’d have labeled me as insane. And yet here we are. The invented right to privacy lead to Roe v. Wade, partial birth abortion, and –oh, by the way, it is not an insane idea to suggest that a six month old can be killed because it is still not a person.
If you had not yet noticed, everything relating to morality and virtue heads into decline the moment you let government decide. Like the statutory devaluation of life we suddenly find inconvenient. A path that did not stop in 1974 or at any point since. And we are meant to believe it won’t continue from this point until the government defines what any life is worth, who is entitled to it, and on what terms.
Is it not now an imperative that life’s advocates try to take back some rope back?
With that in mind, HB1679 would affect abortions from the third trimester up to and including partial birth abortion, with exceptions for circumstances where the mothers life is in danger. An effort that could never pass muster with New Hampshire Democrats, or their progressive (r)epublican water carriers.
So while the bill did pass 224-110, with more than a few libertarians taking a walk on this one, there are still 110 New Hampshire House legislators who believe that the ability to survive outside the womb, including the time of actual birth, does not entitle you to live, should your mother deem you an inconvenient obstacle to be discarded.
And before you lefties call me some fringe right wing nut, most American’s agree with me. About 80% are against abortion from the beginning of the third trimester on. That makes you the fringe left wing nuts.
So here are the nays. No surprises.
|Vote Date: 03/14/2012||Vote#: 150||Question/Motion: OTP/AM 0985H(NT)||Bill Text||Bill Status|
|Result List||Bill Docket|
|Yeas: 224||Nays: 110||View All Roll Calls|
|Barry, J. Gail||Republican||Hillsborough||16||Nay|
|Christensen, D.L. Chris||Republican||Hillsborough||19||Nay|
|Wallner, Mary Jane||Democrat||Merrimack||12||Nay|