Infanticide is Not a Synonym of Abortion

One of the most e-mailed stories on Yahoo! News today is Killings of Newborn Babies on the Rise in Pakistan. And a comment I’ve seen a lot is “So? It happens all the time here in America.” Of course, they’re referring to abortion. Nope. Not the same thing. Abortion is “the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.”  Infanticide is “the act of killing an infant.” The difference should be obvious.

I am pro-choice. If you thought “duh” because I’m a liberal, there are some who are not pro-choice. I believe in a woman’s right to choose whether or not she wants to continue a pregnancy. After all, the embryo or fetus is dependent upon the mother for its growth and survival. She has to go through this. Whether or not she chooses to is not up to me, you, or the government.

This is where I don’t understand Conservative thinking. Many Conservatives want less government intrusion. What is more intrusive than telling a woman what she can or can’t do with her own body? Also, some of these women have abortions because they are not financially ready or able to raise a child. If they had these children and had to go on public assistance, would they be branded “Welfare Queens?”  

I know, “adoption,” right?   I admire women who go this route, but I won’t demonize the women who don’t either. They have to go through pregnancy, labor, and delivery only to give their child away. It’s a tough decision, but her decision.

One of the things I hate is being called pro-abortion. I don’t jump up and down when I hear of a woman who has one. And I certainly don’t support forced abortions. In October of last year, a pregnant woman in China was taken kicking and screaming to have an abortion one month before her due date. She violated China’s “One-Child Policy.” This is absolutely horrific. This is a case of the government being able to control what a woman does with her own body. This woman chose to carry to term and was robbed of her choice.

People ask where I draw the line, if I do. I draw the line at the viability of the fetus outside of the mother’s womb. If it can survive, then abortion shouldn’t be an option. There is a huge difference between having an abortion if you are 2 months pregnant and being 8 months pregnant. A 2 month old fetus can not survive outside a woman’s body.

That article illustrating what is going on in Pakistan is heart-breaking. Posters on the comment section say that women who are pro-abortion (grrrrr) don’t get to be sad and are hypocritical if we are.  Bull poo poo. I am sad that these babies died because the mother felt she had no other option. I am sad that the women did not know there was an orphanage in Karachi that encourages them to drop off their babies there. I am sad that women are so devalued that baby girls are being killed more often boys are. I am sad when I see the lifeless bodies of these babies being carried away.

I am sad when women are demonized for making choices concerning their bodies. I am sad when women are forced to abort just because being pregnant violates some government policy. And I am sad when I see newborns being killed because the mothers didn’t have the choice to have a safe, legal abortion.

And I’ll be sad when I go on the Yahoo! Comment Section, post, and be called a baby killer. Actually, no. I’ll be pissed off.

22 responses to “Infanticide is Not a Synonym of Abortion

  • Terrance H.

    You are resting your first argument on semantics alone. Do you seriously see a real difference between partial-birth abortion and infanticide? Do you seriously see a real difference between a 23-week-old fetus and a newborn?

    It’s true that a fetus prior to 20-weeks cannot possibly survive without the mother; however, people on life-support machines are totally dependent on something other than themselves. Does that mean they aren’t people?

    You’d also have to consider if sex is consent to motherhood. We already know that it’s consent to fatherhood (at least financially), should pregnancy result. So why shouldn’t sex be consent to motherhood, at least for nine-months?

    Conservative hypocrisy is really a non-argument, because it has nothing to do with whether unborn children deserve a Right to Life. Why you mentioned it is beyond me.

    Furthermore, I fail to understand why – at viability – the mother no longer has rights. If you’re going to support abortion, then you should support it the full nine-months. It’s still her body no matter how developed the unborn child is.

    I don’t have that problem because, in my opinion, sex is consent to motherhood, so she can exercise whatever rights she wants so long as the rights of the fetus are not interfered with.

    • lbwoodgate

      I know you feel you have some divine authority to protect the unborn but the reality is that the basis of your faith isn’t the law of the land . It’s a “belief” system; not a reality system. Your belief has derived from an ancient culture who actualkly believed that the sun revolved around the earth.(Joshua 10:13) Live your faith as you see it but don’t presume it is absolute across the cultural divide. It isn’t

      Anti-abortionist keep making up views and think they are the only ones who can assert such views. The notion that ” sex is consent to motherhood” is typical of the ideological speak within anti-abortion crowds and is given merit without considering its veracity.

      The human passions that generate the sex drive have no definable link between the drive and the intent on becoming parent. Such a consideration is usually after the fact. It is the Judeo-christian culture that develops this notion and then locks it in as if it were a natural law. It isn’t. Believe this if you choose and live it as you choose. But don’t expect others to buy into it who have not assimilated such notions into their perception of life.

      Neither is the unborn a person. To you they may be but to others they are a “potential” person. Their is a distinction. Many of us believe that you are not truly human until after birth and experienced pain, suffering, happiness, joy excitement, fear, etc. It is our life experiences that make us human.

      That being said though I do believe that unless the pregnancy is a threat to the mother’s life that any abortion after the first trimester is a bad precedent.

      Another stickler I think many pro-life people find themselves guilty of is the notion that “only God can take a life”. The wars man creates may give God an opportunity to use this rather fickle power but had the war not been created by men do you really believe that all of the people who die on the battlefield were scheduled to die that same day had no war existed.

      Mankind creates conditions that effect their lives, some are bad choices that ultimately lead to their death. Are you suggesting that God encouraged these bad choices so he could remove them from this life. And please don’t tell me the devil influenced their bad choice. Was it a bad choice for the neighbor to rush into a burning home to save a child from a fire that was perhaps started from a lit cigarette that fell from the hand of a parent who dozed off?

      Also, you can’t call yourself pro-life and be pro-war. Our military personnel may make the free choice to join and serve in combat that may take their life, but the innocent civilian “collateral damage” didn’t, many of them the children you purport to want to save from other forms of “murder”.

      Believe what you will but don’t be so presumptuous that those who think differently are some how “evil”. This tactic dehumanizes one’s adversaries, which seems odd for a people who claim to value life.

      • Terrance H.


        You began your reply with two false accusations. I do not feel that I have a “divine authority to protect the unborn,” and I certainly don’t inject religion into any of my pro-life arguments. Visit my website, reread my response to spinny. I’m a bilingual Christian, meaning I can torpedo the pro-choice arguments without invoking religious doctrine. That you have gone out of your way to ascribe to me a state of mind which I do not hold is underhanded and dull-witted.

        Following your asinine opening, you made yet another asinine and wholly unsupportable claim; namely, that one’s sex-drive has nothing to do with procreation. You attempted to disguise the remarks’ inherent stupidity by invoking psychological terms like desire; however, we both know the biological purpose of sex.

        I figured the next line-of-thought would be equally asinine, and I must say, you didn’t disappoint. Scientifically, unborn children – including zygotes and embryos – are human beings, which means they are persons. We as human beings reason with concepts and definitions; to fabricate definitions arbitrarily is to be irrational.
The end of your reply was a rant regarding war, pro-lifers, God, and Satan. It was merely another example of irrationality and a penchant for logical fallacies. You have suggested a correlation between being pro-life and pro-war, and for no apparent reason other than a desire to impress yourself with pseudo-philosophical balderdash.

        Your blog contains nothing of substance and neither do your replies.

      • lbwoodgate

        Have it your way Terrance. My job isn’t to win people like you over. If anything it’s to challenge your silly presumption that you “can torpedo the pro-choice arguments” at any level.

  • SpinnyLiberal

    Ah semantics. If we want to go there, then “partial birth abortion” is not a medical term. The proper term is Dilation and Extraction. In your example 23 weeks is around 6 months. Can it survive outside the womb without medical intervention?

    Viability is very important because it can live independently of the mother. Those on life support are fully developed human beings that up until some tragic event could live without those machines.

    Why did I mention Conservative hypocrisy? Because I felt like it.

  • Terrance H.

    A 23-week-old fetus would require medical intervention. But so what? The child is still viable outside the womb.

    I don’t see why viability should matter if you justify abortions prior to that by saying its the woman’s body, ergo her decision. It’s still her body.

    It’s also something to consider that you are assigning worth to different stages of human development. Similar arguments were used to justify the murder of Jews and African-Americans.

  • SpinnyLiberal

    Nazi comparison. Yes, the did use viability as the basis for legal abortion. They also forbade Aryan women from having abortions, encouraged the non-Aryan women to have them. They also sterilized women and performed horrific experiements on them. They practiced what those of us who are pro-choice are against. Government intrusion on a woman’s body.

  • Terrance H.

    I’m not talking about abortions; I’m talking about murdering people because they were viewed as either 1). underdeveloped; or 2). less than human.

    It’s the exact same rational pro-choicers use.

  • SpinnyLiberal

    I guess you can believe that, but it brings us back to viability thing again. People are fully developed humans. Fetuses are undeveloped humans incapable of survival outside the womb. Even when they’re viable they’re still not fully developed. That’s just a given.

    When Nazis killed people, it was based on the opinion that they were underdeveloped (scientifically not accurate) and less than human (belief not supported scientifically).

  • Terrance H.

    It’s not something to believe; it’s something to know.

    The point is that the same rational the pro-choicers are using today is the same rational the Nazi’s used. Why should a fetus be considered less than human? Why should a human being in any stage of development be treated as something different?

    The development argument doesn’t really pass muster. All of us develop continually throughout our lives. You’re making humanity conditional.

  • SpinnyLiberal

    Whether or not the development argument passes muster isn’t really relevant. I’m not trying to convince as people usually have their opinions formed on the subject already. I’m showing why I believe that viability is important to where I draw the line.

  • Dave the Sage

    The only difference between infanticide and abortion is geography. The result is the same.

  • Kendrick Macdowell

    I’ve never understood the pro-life focus on the definition of life. What does that really mean? How do we solve anything by resolving the definition of life? Okay, both fetuses and Timothy and Jared are life. So? We make decisions routinely to end life. Not lightly, ever. But we do. In the case of the fetus, we say that the woman can choose to bear it, or not. It is the woman’s body. Every woman should have options, but it is the woman’s body.

    • Terrance H.

      By resolving the definition of life, we make it clear that unborn children – at all stages of development – are human beings. Once we’ve done that, we can discuss if they, like any other innocent human being, are deserving of Rights. If we don’t resolve the issue, then we aren’t sure what or who we are giving the Rights to.

      What pro-choicers can’t seem to get through their head is that personal autonomy is not absolute. This is why prostitution is illegal.

  • SpinnyLiberal

    You guys posted a lot of thought-provoking comments. Thanks! One of my favorite quotes from Hillary Clinton is, “I believe abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

  • lbwoodgate


    “What pro-choicers can’t seem to get through their head is that personal autonomy is not absolute. This is why prostitution is illegal.”

    This is a false comparison. Prostitution is a moral issue. It no doubt has it negative aspects where its associated with STDs and human trafficking but it is legal in some form in 60% of the nations that were studied by; an organization that studies issues they feel are controversial and important, and then work to present them in a balanced, comprehensive and straightforward manner. You can see these results here. Even in the U.S. there is some legal prostitution. Check it out on the Procon site.

    You should try and replicate their style Terrance by working to be more balanced and comprehensive. You might attract more adherents with this “leading a horse” style rather than beating it to get it to move. People get defensive automatically when you “torpedo” their choice domains. Just a thought.

    Clearly now you appear to wear blinders that denigrates anything that doesn’t fit your perception of this issue and then dehumanize those who hold them. How Christ-like of you.

  • Terrance H.


    Are you dense? Prostitution, you say, is a moral issue. Abortion is not? Prostitution, you say, has negative aspects associated with it. Abortion does not?

    I’m not about to take advice from someone who has difficulty forming a coherent argument, or someone fond of the straw man.

    Furthermore, I couldn’t care less how defensive you get. You engaged me in discussion with two false accusations and a plethora of logical fallacies. Perhaps you should try to be a little more “balanced and comprehensive.”

    Just a thought.

    Clearly you have no interest in listening to what other people have to say. You seek to insult those who do not conform to your view of the world. I must say you an ideologue.

    How Darwin-like of you.

    • lbwoodgate

      Are you dense?

      Still using the stick approach I see to get the horse to move.

      How Darwin-like of you.

      So you acknowledge a scientific view on things? Does this mean you also recognize there is more than one slant on this issue besides yours? If so, does it get equal value,? If not,why not? Did God tell you it shouldn’t?

      • Terrance H.

        You don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve never once been rude to Spinny. And do you know why? She’s not slinging baseless accusations. That’s certainly more than I can say for you.

        For some bizarre reason, you think all pro-lifers are religious zealots. I’m not sure where you get this idea – save from maybe Keith Olbermann. Did he tell you that?

        And no, there is no good slant on the issue of abortion save for the pro-life one. I don’t compromise on that issue. Why? Malum in se.

        In case you were sick the day you were supposed to get an education, it means something that is inherently wrong, as opposed to be wrong because the law says so.

      • lbwoodgate

        What an arrogant little toad you are?

  • Terrance H.

    Was that that supposed to be a question, lib-lab?

  • My Confession | spinnyliberal

    […] hate being called pro-abortion, as I said in my post, Infanticide is not a Synonym of Abortion. Why? It’s simply not […]

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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: