Maryland Leaps On The Deadly Abortion Slippery Slope

When you think about it, this shouldn’t surprise us, as horrible and unethical as it is. The steps from abortion, to late-term abortion, to legal infanticide have always been smaller than abortion advocates have been willing to admit.

In one of the efforts underway in several Democratic-controlled legislatures to protect abortion rights if the Supreme Court alters or strikes down Roe v. Wade, Maryland is considering Senate Bill 669. The bill’s language states, in addition to protecting abortions themselves from prosecution, that no person can be investigated or charged for “experiencing a miscarriage, perinatal death related to failure to act, or stillbirth.”

The perinatal period consists of “the period shortly before and after birth, from the 20th to 29th week of gestation to one to four weeks after birth.” Mark Tapscott concludes,

In other words, it’s anywhere up to four weeks after the birth of the child you and your sexual partner conceived, and you decide you really don’t want the child, hey, no problem, just don’t feed it, don’t get medical care, don’t do a thing. Eventually, the child will die.

And that, under the meaning of the bill’s text, is OK.

The bill, which Tapscott believes is certain to pass and withstand a veto by Maryland’s Republican governor, also bans any investigations into perinatal infant death while creating the private right the right to sue for civil damages if one is investigated for causing a perinatal death through neglect.

Maybe the use of “perinatal” is a drafting error, and won’t survive the process. Maybe some extremist stealthily added it, since legislators these days don’t read what they vote for. And just maybe the language means what it says, and Maryland Democrats favor infanticide. Fetuses are just babies at an earlier stage of their development, after all; as I said, the jump from abortion to infanticide isn’t that great. What matters is the mother’s “choice.”

Tapscott writes,

It’s not far-fetched to think something akin to what is now being pushed by the Left in Maryland and elsewhere will become a priority of the most extreme elements of the national Democratic Party, especially in the House of Representatives.

No, it’s not. I suspect, however, that the bill, should it become law, might make it difficult for the pro-abortion activists to continue their “Baby? What Baby?” charade that characterizes abortion as an act involving only one human being’s life. Maybe this law, as barbaric as it is (Tapscott reminds us that under Roman law, the father had the right to kill his children for any reason or no reason) will rip away the mask that has allowed abortion zealots to keep an apathetic public confused about what abortion really is.

We shall see.

Incidentally, the name of the Maryland State Senator  sponsoring this bill is  Will Smith.

14 thoughts on “Maryland Leaps On The Deadly Abortion Slippery Slope

  1. Any article on the Texas legislator floating the idea of capital punishment for those who kill their unborn babies? He’s clearly just a bomb thrower and the Maryland bill is actually something working its way through the legislature.

    • And I see that California has a proposed but not heard amendment that does the same thing. I was shocked that this didn’t start in California, but I guess they didn’t want to miss boarding this particular train-wreck. Between these bills and Ralph Northam’s statements in an interview, the pro-abortion segment of the pro-choice movement seems to be letting the mask slip, and unlike Pete Singer they can’t be called a fringe element.

      https://www.mrctv.org/blog/ca-becomes-third-state-considering-bill-legalize-infanticide

    • The bill is titled “Pregnant Person’s Freedom Act of 2022.” I’m convinced that the amendment will not address this fundamental flaw. There’s a simple term already used by medical professionals called “Allow Natural Death” AKA Do Not Resuscitate. It shouldn’t be difficult to distinguish infanticide from a life-ending birth defect and/or birth injury.

  2. This is the logic of nearly all pro-choice arguments. Peter Singer has the courage (if you want to call it that) to follow the arguments to their actual conclusion. Pro-choice arguments about personhood would also justify infanticide. I read an article in a philosophy journal once (I wish I could find it again) that argued the same thing and told pro-choicers to be honest about the logical implications of a more restricted definition of personhood. The authors of the article were pro-choice.

    If you are pro-choice, there is no argument against infanticide because a newborn lacks all of the traits that the pro-choicers say a human needs to be a “person.” You really can’t be in favor of the right to an abortion and not also logically support infanticide, at least in principle.

    I’m happy most pro-choicers don’t actually support infanticide, but the logic of the position in most circumstances requires them to support it.

    • It does not conflict with the most honest “pro-choice” argument, that a women should have an absolute right to make decisions about her own body (even to the detriment of other parties effected by those decisions).

      The decision to remove the child from her body is hers alone to make, and the pro-choice position is that the law should not interfere with that decision. Once the baby is born, decisions about her body no longer impact the child; the law can thus limit the choices she makes about the baby’s body.

      Arguments about the non-personhood of the fetus are squishy. They are to obviate the guilt that comes from the choice to destroy another person’s body. However, one does not logically need to believe in the non-personhood of the child to believe the choice should be reserved to the women alone. One need only be willing to honestly accept pre-term infanticide, while logically still reject post-term infanticide.

      • Rich,

        i don’t follow your point at all. The unborn child has a right to life or it doesn’t. Couching it in terms of a woman’s choice and her choice alone is sophistry, ducking whether the unborn child is, in fact, a child with agency and protected rights.

        jvb

        • The pro-choice position is that the women’s choice over her body is absolute, trumping any competing right from the unborn child or otherwise. You thus can logically argue for the mother killing the child while it is inside her, but not for killing the child while it outside.

          This only works if you accept it is legal kill a child that is otherwise identical to one with a protected right to life due to the fact of its birth.

          If you argue the child inside the mother is not a life, then you logically have to argue that a child outside the mother is not a life. To say otherwise is sophistry, because it ignores the biological reality that the two children are equivalent in every meaningful way except physical position (one in the uterus, the other outside the uterus). This is argument is the one that is dishonestly used to justify killing the kill inside the mother, as it create a false distinction between a preterm and post term baby.

          You could however, make an honest argument that a mother has a right to kill the child, you just cannot justify that right due to a fictional fundamentally difference. The most honest argument for legal abortion is that the mother’s choice to expel the child, for any reason or no reason, out rank’s the child’s right to life.

          Most abortion advocates simply don’t want to make an honest argument.

  3. As someone who defines a person based on mental characteristics rather than DNA, and who has a rather flexible concept of identity, I can and do follow the logic all the way to infanticide, in theory. (I’ve also spent enough time answering customer calls to develop a certain amount of contempt for the idea of human life having inherent value, but that’s an emotional opinion rather than an ethical one.)

    In theory, an infant human’s mind is mostly empty and undeveloped, but in ethical practice I think that we should stay as far away as possible from the slippery slope of killing babies on a whim. It’s a moral hazard to allow people to destroy a fully-functional neotenous brain even if it’s only just begun to collect and integrate data from its environment. That leads to dangerous gray areas regarding the criteria for a brain manifesting a person who has a right to their own existence. Too many humans are bound to take the easy way out when they realize that parenting is harder than they thought it would be, instead of rising to the occasion or never becoming a parent in the first place. They’ll argue for the line to be moved closer and closer to what is unambiguously some kind of person (with some zigzags added for good measure), until many children and even some adults inevitably find themselves on the wrong side of that line.

    I think it’s possible to draw an ethically safe line for abortion somewhere during the development of the human body (including the brain). If we want to move that line earlier in human ontogenesis, though, then we have to start talking about animal welfare and veganism, because a developing human brain isn’t going to be that different from the brain of another animal. I’m fine with talking about animal welfare and veganism as long as people stay intellectually honest and logically consistent, and as long as we’re mindful of the consequences entailed by different methods of achieving various goals.

    Does that all make sense?

    • My problem with that line of reasoning is that plants and animals don’t become humans if you let them live and grow. It doesn’t matter, ethically, if a fetus at some point has no more brain function than an eggplant. If you kill an eggplant, you haven’t stopped a human being from existing. Would The Terminator be guilty of terminating the future John Connor if that was its intent and he killed his future mother?

      • I’m not sure that’s a practical line of reasoning. In the absence of time travel or precognition, we can’t know which of the limitless possible people are destined to exist in “our” worldline.

        Every action that we take is inevitably going to prevent possible people from existing, whether or not that’s our goal. If I don’t have kids because I want to prevent the existence of a hypothetical future person whom I would expect to exist otherwise, how is that different from just exercising my right to not procreate? Even having kids with one person means not having kids with every other member of the opposite sex. From our perspective, there will always be one realized future and infinite unrealized ones. Welcome to existential angst.

        Eventually I would like to turn this world into a destination for all possible people via simulation of different possibilities, but that’s beside the point.

        If you think the world will be richer for allowing more human fetuses to grow into adults, then you may attempt to persuade people to enable that to happen. I don’t think this is a compelling case for that being ethically mandatory, though.

Leave a Reply to sooner8728 Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.