For decades, pro-life activists have been warning that the introduction of abortion and euthanasia leads, inevitably, to post-utero infanticide. For decades, abortion activists decried pro-lifers as fearmongering extremists telling unconscionable lies. And then, when it happened, they defended it.
They defended it when abortionists were caught, time and again, killing babies after birth or leaving them to die without medical care after the little fighters survived the initial attempts on their lives. They defended it when organs were harvested from living babies. And they defended it, in the Netherlands, when the framework for infanticide was expanded last year from the 2004 Groningen Policy to other children, as well.
Of course, most will not defend these practices as “infanticide,” per se. These killings are defended as necessary sacrifices for sexual liberation, “choice,” “science,” or “compassion.” Infanticide is too inflammatory a term to use, which is why activists advocating for it are always careful to use different terms. And when researchers and journalists and activists shed light on the practice, it is ignored. How many, for example, heard of this recent report by the European Institute of Bioethics, published earlier this summer, revealing that a staggering 10% of newborn deaths in Belgium are euthanasia deaths?
