After Birth Abortion: The Next Frontier In the Pro-Choice Movement

Kevin Ambrose
February 8th, 2017.


Abortion is a horrific act that is packaged as a revolutionary revolt against the ethical foundation of Western Civilization. The death cult that makes up the Pro-Choice movement has long asserted that through abortion a woman is taking control of her own body. My Body, My Choice has been their mantra as they’ve pushed the debate further and further left-of-center.

In response the Pro-Life movement has labored to debate whose body is being violated in an abortion. We have asserted that a fetus, as a living human being, has rights independent of the mother who is carrying it. While we have focused on this key factor the Left has broadened the scope of their infanticide industry to include late-term abortions in which the child is murdered despite being able to survive outside of the womb.

In the most horrifying instances of late-term abortions men like Kermit Gosnell (WARNING: Graphic content) have been tried and convicted for the thousands of late-term abortions that they conducted. Yet despite this many Pro-Death activists view Gosnell as a hero. A man providing a service in the revolution against Godly values.

We often speak about the slippery slope that the Pro-Life debate has become. The Left pushes for “reasonable” access to abortion and within a generation young women are having them done simply because they wanted to. As late-term and reckless abortions become more popular we see the Left moving toward the next frontier in their revolution: After Birth Abortions.


Why should the baby live?

The most concise definition of After Birth Abortion comes from the Journal of Medical Ethics in 2012. The article, written by Alberto Giubilini (Department of Philosophy, University of Milan) and Francesca Minerva (Center for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne), contends that there is no moral differentiation between a fetus and an infant. Below we will break down their position. Any emphasis added is my own:

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue 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.

To the average reader this may be shocking. Not just because the authors are demanding the right for a woman to murder her own child but also due to the matter-of-fact way it is written. This sort of intellectual honesty is rare on the Left. They prefer to hide behind “reasonable” limits and then to just do what they see fit behind the veil of privacy in an abortion clinic. The sad reality of America today is that houses of horror like “Doctor” Gosnell’s are far from a rarity. There are dozens of Gosnell’s operating right now as you read this.

But instead in this case we see the true intentions of the death cult on full display:

Nonetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

The Left has long demanded a Socialist Utopia in which the cost of care be shared by the entire community. Now that they are crippling our nation’s with the debt of these programs their solution is to institute a euthanasia program for those who are too big of a drain on their inflated welfare State. Noted “humanitarians” like Bill Gates have argued that it’s better to allow the elderly to die and to use the money that would have been spent on their end-of-life care on hiring new teachers for the children lucky enough to not be aborted. They have forced their vision for a Globalist society on us and now they want to cull the very people they claimed they were protecting.

In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.

The child has the potential to have a meaningful life yet “after birth abortion” must still be an option. Why? Because the mother wants to, of course.

The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.

It is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense.

There you have it. A newborn is not a person but rather a soulless entity with the ability to potentially become a person if given enough time to develop. According to these death cultists depriving the newborn from that opportunity is not morally wrong in the slightest sense.

The Left is literally advocating for a world in which a mother can decide her three month old infant isn’t fitting into her life so she should be able to just drive down to Planned Parenthood and put the child down like it was a dog.

Except the Left has organizations to protect dogs from those sorts of situations.

It is true that a particular moral status can be attached to a non-person by virtue of the value an actual person (eg, the mother) attributes to it. However, this ‘subjective’ account of the moral status of a newborn does not debunk our previous argument.

In this instance they are referring to a newborn as a non-person and asserting that the only value given to it’s life is done so via the mother’s instinctual love for her offspring. This “subjective” emotion that the mother feels for her son or daughter is no different to the death cult than the love a child might feel for a stuffed animal.

If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all. So, if you ask one of us if we would have been harmed, had our parents decided to kill us when we were fetuses or newborns, our answer is ‘no’, because they would have harmed someone who does not exist (the ‘us’ whom you are asking the question), which means no one. And if no one is harmed, then no harm occurred.

God says in Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

But to the Left a newborn does not yet exist, despite it’s ability to breathe, to cry, to live. That child does not exist because it has no will of it’s own and is instead dependent upon it’s parents for sustenance and care. This is what happens when God is removed from society, from academia and from the Life debate. We are left with cultists who define morality in such a way that it is permissible to kill children.

Why should we kill a healthy newborn when giving it up for adoption would not breach anyone’s right but possibly increase the happiness of people involved (adopters and adoptee)?

Our reply is the following. We have previously discussed the argument from potentiality, showing that it is not strong enough to outweigh the consideration of the interests of actual people. Indeed, however weak the interests of actual people can be, they will always trump the alleged interest of potential people to become actual ones, because this latter interest amounts to zero. On this perspective, the interests of the actual people involved matter, and among these interests, we also need to consider the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption.

We are not suggesting that these are definitive reasons against adoption as a valid alternative to after-birth abortion. Much depends on circumstances and psychological reactions. What we are suggesting is that, if interests of actual people should prevail, then after-birth abortion should be considered a permissible option for women who would be damaged by giving up their newborns for adoption.

That’s right, dear reader. Putting down your infant like a dog is fine but seeing it raised in a loving home? Well, that could cause psychological distress.

If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.

In this I agree. If we are not willing to recognize the soul of the fetus then by extension we do not recognize the soul of the infant, the toddler, the child, the adolescent, the mature, the middle-aged or the elderly. Once we sacrifice one upon the altar of Death the rest will inevitably follow. And in that we find the very essence of the slippery slope which the Left forces us to debate upon. What is absurd today will be tolerated tomorrow. What is tolerated tomorrow will be embraced the week after.

Always remember this: when you stand for life you stand for all life in all it’s manifestations. Do not stop speaking the truth because the Left will not cease until they’ve destroyed us all. A fetus is alive just as an infant is alive. A child is just as valuable to our society as our elderly. Defend the vulnerable. Be their voice. This is our duty as Christian Nationalists.

“But those who fail to find me harm themselves; all who hate me love death.”Proverbs 8:36

Fight for God. Fight for Life.