Blurred lines.

I wish that stories like this got more coverage.

“Two abortion clinic workers pleaded guilty Thursday to third-degree murder in deaths that occurred at a Philadelphia clinic where seven babies were allegedly born alive, then killed with scissors…”

I think pro-choice people are more likely to dismiss such a situation as a terrible anomaly, whereas pro-life people are more likely to see this as a predictable conclusion to a mentality that readily accepts abortion.


I don’t believe most abortion clinic workers would snip infant spinal cords.  I think most people recoil at the thought.  For now.  I do, however, find stories like this extremely disconcerting:

“The Wetaskiwin, Alta., woman convicted of infanticide for killing her newborn son, was given a three-year suspended sentence Friday by an Edmonton Court of Queen’s Bench judge.
…
The fact that Canada has no abortion laws reflects that ‘while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childrbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support,’ [the judge] writes.”

Apparenly in Canada you can kill your infant and get a 3-year suspended sentence in order to be consistent with the Canadian view of abortion.


It’s understandable that people are blurring the line between abortion and infanticide.  They aren’t, after all, all that different.  When pro-lifers suggest equivalency we are derided for being sensationalistic at best, manipulative at worst.  Yet, as the above stories suggest, it’s not just pro-lifers who seem to confuse the two.