Skip to content

The Left: Sanctioning Infanticide As an Ends Justifying The Means

August 7, 2010

My latest post at NewsReal:

Barbara Boxer was recently up in arms over some words. No,  this time it wasn’t the oh-so horrifying word ma’am. She was up in arms over her own words or, more to the point, the fact that George Will was holding her to her own words – words that expressed a pro-abortion position so extreme, it can only be described, no matter one’s position on abortion, as outright infanticide. So, she pulled the handy old “out of context” card. Only, it was totally in context, with full video documentation.George Will quoted Barbara Boxer’s own words – in context – in a Newsweek article last month. Here is one of the relevant sections:

In the 1999 colloquy, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) said: Suppose during this procedure the baby slips entirely from the mother’s birth canal. “You agree, once a child is born, is separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed? Do you agree with that?” Boxer: “I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born … the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights.” Santorum persisted: “Obviously, you don’t mean they have to take the baby out of the hospital for it to be protected by the Constitution. Once the baby is separated from the mother, you would agree—completely separated from the mother—you would agree that the baby is entitled to constitutional protection?” She would not say “yes.” Instead, she said, understandably: “I don’t want to engage in this.”

She didn’t want to engage in it. I wouldn’t want to engage in it either, if I was flagrantly sanctioning infanticide and depriving human beings of Constitutional rights, as Barbara Boxer was. Boxer then tried to back-pedal a bit, as you can see in the video of the C-SPAN recording below:

Her back-pedaling, however, only served to show how delusional her comments are. Her, and other pro-abortionists’, alleged arguments are nowhere near based in sanity. If a toe is still inside the mother, then, says Boxer, you can’t kill the baby. But, if a whole foot? She chose not to answer. Yet, in a partial birth abortion, only the top of the baby’s head remains inside the mother – the entire body and part of the head is fully delivered. Then, in the part of the skull that is outside of the mother’s body, an instrument is used to stab the skull, creating a puncture from which the baby’s brain is then sucked out. And the baby is left to die.

Barbara Boxer, horrifyingly, is not alone in these beliefs. Our own president not only would not ban partial birth abortion, but when a senator in Illinois, he wouldn’t even protect babies who miraculously survived abortion attempts. He was more concerned with the feelings of the mothers, protecting abortion itself, and with protecting doctors, who shouldn’t be required to save those pesky babies – human lives, with the strong survival instinct therein and the will to live. He felt so little for the babies, he phrased his questioning during the debate over the Born Alive bill as such:

As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it — is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead..

Not just coming out limp and dead. And not brought home from the hospital, as Boxer argues. How dare these babies live!

In 1973, seven black-robed men gave these pro-abortionists cover for their irrational and, frankly, inhumane rationales by not only creating a right to abortion, but by also inventing some sort of “viability” out. Which is being pushed further and further to now include babies that are fully born. Babies – human lives – who could survive outside of the womb, but who are, instead, pierced in the skull and left to die. Alone. Never once receiving sustenance, nor even feeling a human touch nor the love of cradling arms.

Worse, most pro-abortionists actually know this is the taking of a life. They just don’t care.

Ann Rice was recently interviewed by the useless bint known as Joy Behar. Behar asked her if she believes that abortion is the pre-meditated taking of a human life. Rice answered Yes. And then went on to say that it shouldn’t be illegal. It’s murder, she admits, yet it should be condoned. Why? The answer lies in a recent London Times article by Antonia Senior – an answer that exposes pro-abortionists as a type of fanatical zealot:

What seems increasingly clear to me is that, in the absence of an objective definition, a foetus is a life by any subjective measure.

She clearly states an unborn baby is life. She goes onto say that abortion is, in fact, the taking of that life. So, why is she, and others like her, still pro-abortion? Because life matters little to ideological zealots:

But you cannot separate women’s rights from their right to fertility control. The single biggest factor in women’s liberation was our newly found ability to impose our will on our biology.

The belief that nature itself is some stealth patriarchal evil plot to subjugate women. Women cannot be “liberated” unless freed of their biology and anatomy. Therefore, killing is acceptable. It’s for a good cause, you see:

As ever, when an issue we thought was black and white becomes more nuanced, the answer lies in choosing the lesser evil. The nearly 200,000 aborted babies in the UK each year are the lesser evil, no matter how you define life, or death, for that matter. If you are willing to die for a cause, you must be prepared to kill for it, too.

The lesser evil. The killing of the innocent – for a cause – is a lesser evil. Barbara Boxer, President Obama and those who hold unconditional, pro-abortion positions are willingly complicit in what they actually know is the taking of a life, all to further dogmatic ideology and political agendas. Babies, be damned.

They know it’s the taking of a life. They just don’t care. Because the ends justify the means. In this instance, horrifically, the means is the mass killing of innocent babies.

50 million in the United States alone. And counting.


(Originally posted at David Horowitz’s NewsReal. Cross-posted at RedState)

9 Comments leave one →
  1. mike permalink
    August 7, 2010 11:45 pm


    As always you dropt the bomb…

  2. Becky permalink
    August 7, 2010 11:55 pm

    All of this discussion of Abortion is buried in the fantasy that this is a choice. Only if your morals are bankrupt is it a choice. For someone who has the moral underpinnings that value life there is no option of Abortion.

    Boxer is a typical self enthralled liberal who cannot be bothered to be the slightest bit responsible with her life as it applies to reproduction. I say this because she advocates irresponsibility at every turn as well as hypocrisy.

    She is encouraging of abortion, and yet, offers tons of money to welfare moms who keep popping out babies with no idea who the daddy is. This is hypocrisy.

    Ultimately Abortion is simply a political footbal that is used to gin up support for ultra liberals who are really the most irresponsible members of congress that we have.

    While the original post points out very eloquently this very issue, I can only wonder how much longer our society will last with the lack of the moral requirement of a person being responsible for their actions….

  3. Chris permalink
    August 8, 2010 11:24 am

    I recall reading at one point or the other that Chief Justice Burger joined the majority in Roe in order to limit it. He had joined the majority opinion upholding DC abortion restrictions in United States v. Vuitch just two years earlier and in 1981 he voted with three other justices to invalidate Roe. (Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists)

    My point, somewhat OT, is that it seems Burger’s mistake was in believing he could moderate the decision when he was really letting the genie out of the bottle. It doesn’t excuse him but it makes him far less odious than his other Roe v. Wade colleagues.

  4. Chris permalink
    August 8, 2010 11:41 am

    I’m sorry, Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists was in 1986, not 81. 😉

  5. Acornholio permalink
    August 8, 2010 2:16 pm

    Forget Iran. California could use some surgical air strikes.

  6. Doc Cady permalink
    August 8, 2010 7:38 pm

    I never realized before this video how evil Boxer is.

  7. Don Cicchetti permalink
    August 9, 2010 1:32 am

    What is so brilliantly stated in this article is that yes, they do know what abortion is, and no, they do not care.

    We must recognize how true this really is, and what it tells us about who they are, and most of all, that we must stand up.

    Thank You

  8. August 9, 2010 6:39 pm

    Hey Boys and Girls, JUDGMENT DAY is coming and I suspect not far away. Hitler killed twenty million people and we have killed fifty million before they were even born. We have fools and idiots arguing that sodomites should be allowed to marry despite GOD`s definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Society is calling “good evil and evil good” tell me I am wrong.


  1. Tweets that mention The Left: Sanctioning Infanticide As an Ends Justifying The Means « Snark And Boobs --

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: