By Dave Andrusko
Editor’s note. I was on a college campus this morning, helping the child of a friend navigate a couple of bureaucratic hurdles. Then I was politely accosted on my way off campus by someone canvassing for Planned Parenthood. It made me think of this post of a while back which also ran as summer was getting into gear that was hugely popular.
Is it something to be amused about (because it is so absurd), alarmed by (because of what presumably intelligent college students agreed to in just one hour), or a sign of a softening toward infanticide?
Dan Joseph works for Brent Bozell’s Media Research Center and, clipboard in hand, went to George Mason University in Northern Virginia. I know something about the school because my oldest daughter attended graduate school there and it is not some off-the-charts pro-abortion coven.
Nonetheless when Patrick asked the students if they were “up” for signing a petition to legalize FOURTH trimester abortion, 14 students did so in just about exactly one hour, a lot, as Patrick pointed out, during summer school.
Obviously some were puzzled, some confused, but others clearly understood. (A video of the remarkable interactions can be viewed at www.mrctv.org/embeddedmedia/students-sign-petition-legalize-4th-trimester-abortio)
Patrick would tell students that “Currently fourth trimester abortions are illegal in all 50 states” and that he wanted to “make them legal so women have the choice. We feel it’s a woman’s body…” etc.
The petition itself, read, “Send a message to our lawmakers that women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies and their babies
before, during, and after their pregnancies.”
Patrick is very glib anyway and pro-abortion platitudes rolled off his tongue and were lapped up by the audience.
* “I don’t think a woman should be punished with an unwanted child” or “an unwanted post-pregnancy.”
* “We believe it’s a child and a choice”
* Evidently to someone who hesitated, “Why do you hate women?”
* This petition is directed at “men in Washington, saying you do not get to make the rules about what a woman can do with her body and with her baby.”
As she signed the petition, one woman said, “I just had a baby three months ago.” To the totally oblivious co-ed, Joseph responded mockingly, “He would be very proud of you, I think, for signing this.”
It’s easy to dismiss what college students would sign, although less easy to dismiss what one guy said–“cool.” But the responses of the students says something about how the ideology of “choice”–of not allowing anyone to stop us from doing anything, including murdering our newborn children—and the old reliable bogeyman of “men” stopping “women” is wearing down the instinct to protect our children at all costs.
In posts yesterday and today, Wesley Smith reveals how the slippery slope works in the arena of physician-assisted suicide: “The right to refuse treatment = a right to starve oneself to death with a doctor’s help = a right to be lethally injected.” The next step, of course, is often one that has been developing along the way: punishment for doctors who refuse to cooperate. And, we are told, physician-assisted suicide must not only be paid for, in an era of rising medical costs, it ought to be the preferred “solution” to costly treatment.
NRL News Today has posted dozens of stories about the “Groningen Protocol” which has expanded beyond adults to include lethally injecting newborns for more and more reasons, including if the child’s existence makes the parents “suffer”!
And who can forget “After-birth abortion,” the endlessly discussed Journal of Medical Ethics article written by bioethicists Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva? They wrote that “‘after birth abortion [killing a newborn] should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”
Alas, it is not merely students who have soaked up too much ideology and too much sun that support these hideous measures.