491 Canadian Babies Survived Abortions and Left to Die

The grisly logic of abortion is most apparent in the debates and discussions concerning what to do with and for babies who, against all the odds, manage to survive an abortion.

In most places, these little ones are discarded. Left alone, untended and untouched, they die the lonely death of a human who has been deemed less than human by other people.
As one nurse here in Oklahoma described it to me, “No one does anything to keep them warm or give them fluids. No one picks them up or holds them.” She described one baby girl who survived 13 hours like this.
This hardness of heart of medical professionals is equalled by the pro-abortion people and the politicians I have tried to talk to about this. I have been met with indifference from the politicians and one of the coldest statements I’ve ever heard from a pro-abortion person.
“That’s the doctor’s fault,” this person told me, “he should have killed the baby with a lethal injection before the abortion.”
This statement, with its frank acknowledgement that this baby could have survived and assertion that the only fault in the whole thing was that the doctor hadn’t killed it more effectively, still troubles me.
It was one of those dear God what have we become moments for me. What has abortion and this power to kill at will turned us into?
It appears that it has made those who support abortion into people who welcome every aspect of a constantly-expanding culture of death. Euthanasia has become the new abortion; the latest legal hurdle to be jumped in the on-going race toward an absolute culture of death.
People who support abortion always seem to jump on the newest killing bandwagon, whatever it is. They find an argument that makes killing a “right” of some sort for each new murderous idea that the purveyors of death hatch up. They never see the essential wrongness of laws that legalize killing the weak and defenseless.
Their inculturation in the death-dealing logic of killing as a solution for the messiness of life has taught them to regard the lives of needy human beings as an unfair burden on the rest of us. The sanctity of human life is an enemy in a world run by this logic, an irrational barrier to doing what they want with whomever they decide should die. Human life is something to be controlled and wiped out whenever it becomes troubling.
We’ve moved to an all-out commodification of human beings with designer babies and embryonic stem cell research. Women, as usual, are commodities in this brave new world whose reproductive capacities are farmed by egg harvesters and whose uteri are rented by those who want the “services” of a surrogate. This new form of prostitution is destructive to women in ways that previous generations of misogynists could never have imagined.
At the same time, more and more of our young people eschew the joys of marriage. They dismiss the incredible privilege and happiness of forming their own families and raising their own children to chase after transient stuff and nonsense which offers no fulfillment, robs people of their peace and sets the whole of society on a suicidal path.
Is it any wonder, given the utterly bizarre way that our society is tending, that we are indifferent as a culture to the lives of children who are born alive after an abortion? We are a people who will charge someone with a felony for mistreating a cat or dog but who studiously support those who do nothing to comfort or aid a newborn baby we’ve decided shouldn’t be alive in the first place.
I’ve dealt first hand with the indifference of politicians to babies who survive abortions. It was a chilling realization for me. Nice people can zip on their compassion-proof suits and become indifference itself to this crime against humanity. Their hardness of heart is absolute, and it extends to people who try to reason with them about what they are doing.
There is no indifference to suffering like the indifference of someone who has decided that other people are not fully human and they can kill them if they want. There is no anger like the anger of these people when you tell them that what they are doing is wrong.
The killing indifference of abortion depends on the illusion that the babies who die are not babies, are not human, feel nothing, are nothing. This illusion is necessary to maintain the parallel illusion that abortion is a kindness and that we are doing nothing wrong by supporting it.
Maybe that’s why the proponents of abortion on demand are so adamant that this killing rite be extended to any baby that survives the abortion itself. A “failed abortion” with a living child at the end of it is a frightening reminder of what we are doing.
It also, in the logic of abortion, cancels out the decision the woman made when she decided to abort in the first place. Here she’s made her “choice” and gone through an abortion, only to end up with a baby anyway. How gross.
A living child at the end of an abortion is more than an inconvenience. It is an assault on the illusions that sustain abortion as a “right.” Is it any wonder that these little ones are shuffled aside and ignored to death? Any other action would paint a bull’s eye on the entire linguistic edifice that sustains the lies of abortion.
A LifeNews article says that an admitted 491 babies survived abortions and were then left to die in Canada last year. I’m sure the actual number is much higher, for the simple reason that most of these babies don’t make it onto the charts. I’ve heard stories about babies who survived abortions here in Oklahoma from nurses and hospital chaplains. From what I was told, none of these babies were ever officially charted as being alive.
I admire LifeNews and often use them as a source. But I do not agree with the article’s assumption that the Infant Born Alive Act here in the United States protects babies who survive abortions. Based on first-hand accounts from professionals who work in our hospitals here in Oklahoma, I do not believe that it does.
However, the article still provides an interesting analysis of the part of this tragedy that is out in the open in Canada.
The LifeNews article reads in part:

Figures from Statistics Canada, a federal government agency, show 491 babies were born alive following botched abortions during the period from 2000-2009 and left to die afterwards. The numbers have pro-life advocates up in arms.
Andre Schutten, legal counsel for ARPA Canada, noticed the numbers and blogged about themrecently.
The blog Run with Life has reported that, from 2000 to 2009, 491 babies have been born alive following a failed abortion procedure, and subsequently left to die. And those are only the ones that are recordedby Statistics Canada.



The blog explains that “there were 491 abortions, of 20 weeks gestation and greater, that resulted in live births. This means that the aborted child died afterit was born. These abortions are coded as P96.4 or ‘Termination of pregnancy, affecting fetus and newborn’.”
The question that should immediately present itself is, why has there not been 491 homicide investigations or prosecutions in connection with these deaths? Section 223(2) of the Criminal Code (the accompanying subsection to the now infamous subsection that Mr. Woodworth’s motion 312 was examining) reads “A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.” That is to say, anyone who interferes with a pregnancy such that the child dies after it is born alive due to that interference, is guilty of homicide.
So again, why have there been no criminal prosecutions? Why no outcry? And why are the provinces funding this explicitly criminal activity? (Read more here.)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/publicc...d-left-to-die/

Canada: 491 Babies Born Alive After Failed Abortions, Left to Die

Figures from Statistics Canada, a federal government agency, show 491 babies were born alive following botched abortions during the period from 2000-2009 and left to die afterwards. The numbers have pro-life advocates up in arms.

Andre Schutten, legal counsel for ARPA Canada, noticed the numbers and blogged about them recently.

The blog Run with Life has reported that, from 2000 to 2009, 491 babies have been born alive following a failed abortion procedure, and subsequently left to die. And those are only the ones that are recordedby Statistics Canada.



The blog explains that “there were 491 abortions, of 20 weeks gestation and greater, that resulted in live births. This means that the aborted child died after it was born. These abortions are coded as P96.4 or ‘Termination of pregnancy, affecting fetus and newborn’.”

The question that should immediately present itself is, why has there not been 491 homicide investigations or prosecutions in connection with these deaths? Section 223(2) of the Criminal Code (the accompanying subsection to the now infamous subsection that Mr. Woodworth’s motion 312 was examining) reads “A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.” That is to say, anyone who interferes with a pregnancy such that the child dies after it is born alive due to that interference, is guilty of homicide.

So again, why have there been no criminal prosecutions? Why no outcry? And why are the provinces funding this explicitly criminal activity?

Some might argue that these procedures need to be protected in order to protect women’s health. Those who defend such actions or procedures are undoubtedly grasping at the defense for the crime listed in 238(1). Subsection 238(2) provides this defence: “This section does not apply to a person who, by means that, in good faith, he considers necessary to preserve the life of the mother of a child, causes the death of that child.”

However, this defense does not apply to section 223(2); it only applies to section 238(1). That section states “Every one who causes the death, in the act of birth, of any child that has not become a human being, in such a manner that, if the child were a human being, he would be guilty of murder, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.” (Which is, incidentally, another section that is not prosecuted or investigated enough.)

The lack of prosecution demonstrates two things: first, that political correctness surrounding the abortion issue trumps common sense, common decency and the rule of law; and second, that those who advocate for this type of behaviour are truly pro-abortion and not pro-choice. Let me explain: the only defense that could possibly justify such a procedure would be to save the life of the mother. But note well that in order to save the life of the mother a physician would only need to end the pregnancy – and that can happen, at this late stage of pregnancy, with either a live, albeit premature, baby or a dead baby. If the terminated pregnancy results in a human being dying after birth, it is because that death was the end goal; saving the life of the baby’s mother was only a pretext.

Our provinces need to stop funding this criminal behaviour. Our police need to start investigating this criminal behaviour. Our society needs to stop tolerating this behaviour. And our politicians need to keep discussing this behaviour.

The Born Alive Infants Protection Act in the United States, signed into law by pro-life President George W. Bush, protects such babies in the U.S. and it came into existence after pro-life nurse Jill Stanek noticed babies born alive and left to die at his Chicago-area hospital.

This issue is still controversial given that pro-abortion President Barack Obama repeatedly failed to support the bill approved in the Illinois legislature to provide appropriate medical care and protection for such babies.

Mary Spaulding Balch, J.D., director of the National Right to Life Office of State Legislation,says the issue is still a concerned both in the U.S. and worldwide.

Balch said a Feb. 23, 2012, article entitled “After Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?” promoting after-birth abortions and published in the international Journal of Medical Ethics shows where medical ethic is headed.

“The fact that they put an article in this kind of a journal means the issue is on the rise,” Balch said. “It used to be whispered. Now it’s out there in black in white.”

In the Journal article, the authors argue that “killing a newborn should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is [permissible], including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/11/23/c...s-left-to-die/


For a related thread check: http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...tion&p=2522737