For the unborn, surviving an abortion may no longer be enough to escape death.
As pro-abortion legislation continues to become increasingly more radical, babies that survive an attempted abortion are now in jeopardy.
According to a new law that recently went into effect in Minnesota, abortion clinics are no longer required to report what happens to born-alive infants that survive abortions.
Subtle language changes state that born-alive infants now must receive “care,” which is a distinct contrast to the previous law that stated medical professionals must “preserve the life” (see here, page 217, lines 29-30). This follows the passage of the Protect Reproductive Options Act in January, which legalized full-term abortions in the state of Minnesota (see here).
This means that whether a born-alive infant is provided necessary care or not is no longer required to be reported, which opens the door for postnatal abortions.
Unfortunately, laws like these are to be expected from pro-abortion advocates, since their determinants of “personhood” have been consistently arbitrary. Whether it be a heartbeat, the ability to feel pain, consciousness, birth, or even beyond, the standard for when a fetus receives its human status depends on which pro-abortion advocates are asked.
These arbitrary distinctions become alarming when one realizes that whether unborn children live or die are based on them. If pro-abortion advocates themselves cannot agree upon one point when “personhood” begins, then who are they to authoritatively decide whether an unborn child is fit to live or die?
The reality is, pro-abortion advocates’ inability to agree on when a fetus becomes a “human being” or “person” is never addressed because, in their eyes, it is irrelevant. From the pro-abortion perspective, it is not even necessary to justify the killing of the child because the simple fact that the woman wants to abort it overrides any moral objections.
Ultimately, pro-abortion advocates believe that it is the woman’s short-term convenience that trumps all, even the life of her own child. That is why there is no debate among them on when “viability” begins or no outcry from “moderate” pro-abortion advocates condemning this Minnesota law. Even long-term mental health concerns are dismissed because they do not always align with convenience in the present.
The delusion is enabled by the pro-abortion echo chamber that is the mainstream media, which influences the masses. They portray abortion as an obvious moral good and attempt to completely silence any who object.
To pro-abortion advocates, debating over whether a fetus is human is pointless; whether it is or not does not concern them. Even if it were, a fetus’s value still sits below a woman’s “right” to do whatever she chooses with no moral repercussions.
Abortion is appealing to these individuals because it separates the result of sexual intimacy from the pleasure of it. In a similar fashion to how modern-day romantic relationships often play out, these individuals want the benefits of sexual intimacy without the commitment, and abortion enables them to achieve it.
When this sad reality is coupled with a culture that consistently downplays personal responsibility and often portrays it negatively, it becomes increasingly clear how something as morally egregious as abortion has gained so much traction in the United States.
Because of the deadly implications of this deeply flawed moral structure, it is now the job of the pro-life community to speak the truth and slowly chip away at the foundation of the lie that is abortion.