Print this Page

We don’t wear our pro-life views on our sleeves here at FITS for a couple of reasons. First, we’re not child bearers … and we would prefer not to get into the habit of lecturing child bearers on issues that we cannot completely relate to.

Second, this website is primarily focused on fiscal issues … and doing our part to reverse the unsustainable, unchecked expansion of government at all levels. In that endeavor, we’ve discovered that adopting a sanctimonious, overbearing focus on social issues (chief among them abortion) is not exactly a recipe for success.

Having said that, we have made it clear on numerous occasions that we are pro-life … barring a handful of extenuating circumstances, of course.


Well, as we told a prominent (and extremely attractive) “reproductive rights” supporter recently, we believe that the first right guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution is the right to life. And while there are certainly dueling liberty arguments to be made as it relates to things like the morning after pill, the grey area shrinks rapidly when we’re referring to fetuses (especially those that  would be viable outside of the womb).

As such, we find the practice of partial birth abortion especially appalling … murderous, even.

Of course even more insidious than these murders are so-called “after-birth abortions.”

Earlier this week we were forwarded a story that appeared in The Blaze – Glenn Beck’s news source – about a pair of Australian “ethicists” who are advancing the notion that there are “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion” and that in those cases “after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

In other words if a neonatal test missed something, it’s okay to kill a child that is not only viable outside the womb – but has actually already drawn its first breaths. Its actually worse than that, though … according to these researchers such “after birth abortions” should be allowed even in those cases “where the newborn is not disabled.”

The researchers even noted how they selected the term “after-birth abortion” as a way of deliberately equating “the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.”

Amazingly, this isn’t an example of a “conservative” media outlet reaching to manufacture a scandal … these observations were submitted to, accepted and published by the Journal of Medical Ethics.

This is a truly frightening logical construct – one that seeks to justify murder under the guise of delineating “abortion worthy” criteria which may have been missed during a woman’s pregnancy. Extending that construct is even more frightening.

Seriously … what’s next? Offing toddlers because they cry too much? Killing preschoolers because they’re bad finger painters? Shooting your teenager over a dent in the fender?

The debate over when life begins, when fetuses are viable and when (and under what circumstances) abortion should be legal during a pregnancy will always incorporate a wide range of differing opinions – and will always be fraught with  controversy.

Can we all not agree, though, that a child which has drawn air into its lungs is entitled to the right to life?